Sidney Sch. Furniture Co. v. Warsaw Sch. District

Citations

• 130 Pa. 76
• 22 W.N.C. 556
• 18 A. 604
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1164

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. Every point for instructions submitted to the court upon a trial, should be reasonably consistent with the evidence, and so comprehensively framed that the deduction therein drawn is the logical, legal conclusion from the facts assumed, notwithstanding the force of the other evidence in the cause.</p> <p>2. Each point submitted is to be treated as a distinct, independent proposition ; and, in passing upon the correctness of the answer to it, a court of error cannot assume any fact not embraced, expressly or by necessary implication, in the hypothesis set forth in the point as drawn.</p> <p>8. If a point is based upon an hypothesis not sufficiently comprehensive, it may be absolutely negatived, or it may be affirmed with a qualification ; but if the latter, it is the duty of the court to state all the qualifications to which an absolute affirmation is necessarily subject.</p> <p>(a) In an action for the price of furniture which was to be paid for on delivery and which the defendant refused to accept, the plaintiff prayed instructions that he was entitled to recover upon a certain hypothesis, which, as it was stated, did not include the assumption that he had complied with his agreement by delivering the kind of furniture contracted for.</p> <p>4. The affirmance of such a point, without adding any qualification as to the necessity of substantial compliance with the contract by the plaintiff, was erroneous, and tire error was not cured by instructing the jury, in answer to the defendant’s points, that the defendant was not bound to accept furniture not in accordance with the contract.</p> <p>5. When one agrees to make and deliver an article to the satisfaction of another, the latter, acting in good faith and not from mere caprice, may refuse to receive it if for any reason really not satisfactory to him; but a refusal to accept, made without an actual bona fide inspection of the article or an opportunity to judge of its merits, is not wit