Ulmer v. Ryan

Citations

• 137 Pa. 309
• 20 A. 705
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 979

Syllabus

<p>(a) On August 3, 1881, tbe defendants, at Dubuque, authorized a broker in Chicago to “ offer five car loads of fully cured pickled shoulders, average not above twelve pounds, at not below six and one half cents, f. o. b. Dubuque. ” On August 5th, the plaintiff, at Pottsville, telegraphed to the broker to “ buy two cars s. p. shoulders if choice seven.”</p> <p>(5) On August 9th, the broker informed the defendants that he had sold two oar loads of sweet-pickled shoulders “ at 6.85 f. o. b. Dubuque,” and requested them to send the same to his order at Pottsville. The shoulders were shipped, and a bill of lading describing the meat as “ sweet-pickled shoulders” was forwarded to the broker, who reported the purchase and consignment to the plaintiff.</p> <p>(c) The bill of lading was indorsed by the broker, and forwarded with a draft on the plaintiff for the price, which was paid. Before the meat was shipped it was inspected and found to be in good condition. When it reached Pottsville, it was spoiled and found to be unmerchantable. The defendants had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s telegram to the broker at Chicago:</p> <p>1. In such case, the telegram was not a part of the contract sued upon, nor an element in the decision of the cause; there was no implied warranty of the meat; the broker, when he bought, was acting for the plaintiff, but when he sold, he was acting for the defendants, and the rule, that notice to the agent is notice to the principal, had no application: Ryan v. Ulmer, 108 Pa. 332.</p>