Sherts v. Kimmig
Citations
- 44 Pa. Super. 90
- 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 132
Syllabus
<p>Contracts — Sale—Delivery—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for the breach of a contract to purchase plaintiff’s crop of tobacco at a certain price and of a designated quality, where it appears that the plaintiff failed to deliver or offer to deliver the tobacco at the warehouse of the defendant as provided by the contract, the jury should not be permitted to find that the plaintiff was excused from delivering or offering to deliver the tobacco at the warehouse, where the evidence shows that after some dispute about the quality of the tobacco and some talk on the part of the defendant as to rescinding the contract, the plaintiff in a letter demanded to know whether the defendant would receive the crop, to which the defendants answered that they would accept all the tobacco provided it was in accordance with the contract at the time of delivery.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[S]tatutes of limitation affect only the time, within which a legal remedy must be pursued, and do not affect the nature, validity, or construction of the contract.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Beaveb, Head, Hendebson, Mobbison, Oblady, Pobteb, Porter, Rice
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.