Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

147 Pa. 340

Powers v. Curtis

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 1, 1892

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1892-02-01

Appeal, No. 67, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, J. E. Powers, from judgment of nonsuit in favor of defendant, Cyrus H. K. Curtis, by C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1889, No. 110. Assumpsit for work and labor done. At the trial before Reed, J., it appeared that the defendant wrote to the plaintiff requesting him to prepare a series of leaflets or primers as an advertisement of the Ladies Home Journal of which the defendant was proprietor.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1931

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-02-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pee Curiam,

¶1We do not think the court below erred in refusing to take off the nonsuit. The plaintiff’s evidence did not establish a contract between the parties. The plaintiff stated, when upon the witness stand, that No. 1 of the series of leaflets was not made in accordance with the specifications received by him from the defendant. It was sent to the latter with the price marked *342upon it, “ one hundred dollars, if satisfactory.” It was not satisfactory, and was returned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then sent the defendant No. 2 of the series, and, on Oct. 1, 1889, defendant wrote to plaintiff, that “ the primers are good, but I do not care to pay the price you name. Your first offer is $100 for the series; your favor of the 27th names $200; I am afraid, by the time the series are finished, the price would be up in the thousands.” We need not refer at length to the correspondence between the parties. It is sufficient to say, that it does not disclose a contract, or the consent of two minds to a proposition.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/147/pa/340 · .json · Public domain