DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 105
Citation Numbers: 44 Pa. Super. 407
Judges: Beaver, Head, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady
Filed Date: 10/10/1910
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/18/2022
Opinion by
The question at issue as exhibited by the record brought up was one of fact. If the lumber received by the defendant was that ordered by him through V. McDonald on April 17, 1907, the verdict should have been for the plaintiffs. If on the other hand the lumber was delivered pursuant to the order given November 8, 1906, and the payments were made to McDonald, as claimed by the defendant, the verdict was rightly rendered. There was no contradiction of the defendant’s testimony, that when he gave the order of November 8 to McDonald the latter represented that he was acting for himself in selling the lumber and that the defendant so understood McDonald’s position. On such a state of facts the payments in advance by the defendant to McDonald were a good credit on the
It is therefore affirmed.