Legal Opinion

Frantz Equip. Co. v. the Leo Butler Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 26, 1952No. Appeal, 162PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Horace Stern,

Defendant, having purchased a hoist from plaintiff, refused to pay for it on the ground that after it was received and put into operation it was found to be in a materially defective condition and unfit for use. In this action to recover the purchase price the trial judge, sitting without a jury, found for defendant; exceptions were dismissed by the court en banc and from the judgment entered in favor of defendant plaintiff appeals.

Defendant had a contract with the City of Philadelphia for the construction of a portion of an interceptor sewer, for which…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Ryan v. Progressive Grocery Stores, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
  2. Parker v. S. G. Shaghalian & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
  3. Botti v. Venice Grocery Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  4. Raymond Syndicate, Inc. v. American Radio & Research Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  5. Loxtercamp v. Lininger Implement Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1910

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
  2. MacDougall v. Ford Motor Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  3. Otto E. Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1961
  4. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Anderson-Weber, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1961
  5. Carl Beasley Ford, Inc. v. Burroughs CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1973

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API