Case Name: Diamond Rubber Co., to use of B. F. Goodrich Rubber Co., Inc., v. Murr
Court: Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1923-01-13
Citations: 3 Pa. D. & C. 326
Docket Number: No. 28
Parties: Diamond Rubber Co., to use of B. F. Goodrich Rubber Co., Inc., v. Murr.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania District and County Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 326–326

Head Matter:
Diamond Rubber Co., to use of B. F. Goodrich Rubber Co., Inc., v. Murr.
Statement for goods sold and delivered — Sufficiency of.
In an action to recover the price of merchandise sold and delivered to the defendant by oral agreement, the statement need not set forth whether the goods were sold or bought by an agent, or where they were bought, or the date on which the agreeement was made.
Rule for more specific statement. C. P. Lancaster Co., May T., 1922, No. 28.
K. L. Shirk, for rule; George Ross Eshleman, contra.
Jan. 13, 1923.

Opinion:
Hassler, J.,
We think the statement filed in this case is sufficient. It sets forth aAgood cause of action, and is sufficiently specific to give the defendant notice of what he must defend against. It does allege when the goods were sold and delivered to the defendant by reference to the dates appearing in the copy of the book entries attached to the statement. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to state whether the goods were sold or bought by an agent, or where they were bought, nor is it necessary to state the date on which the agreement was made to entitle the plaintiff to recover. We do not think there is any merit in any of the particulars in which it is contended that the statement is not sufficiently specific. We dismiss the rule for a more specific statement and permit the defendant to file an affidavit of defence within fifteen days from this date.