Wasserman v. Fleisher
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 115, Jan. T., 1914, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Philadelphia Co., No. 5, Dec. T., 1912, No. 4168, of nonsuit in case of Albert S. Wasserman, to the use of Philip Arnold and Albert S. Wasserman v. Alfred W. Fleisher. Assumpsit for breach, of warranty.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 115, Jan. T., 1914, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Philadelphia Co., No. 5, Dec. T., 1912, No. 4168, of nonsuit in case of Albert S. Wasserman, to the use of Philip Arnold and Albert S. Wasserman v. Alfred W. Fleisher. Assumpsit for breach, of warranty. Before Martin, J. From the record it appeared that the defendant, a member of a firm of real estate brokers, had procured the sale of certain real estate to the plaintiff, Albert S. Wasserman, and his partner, Philip Arnold, at a price of $10,976.28, and that in the course of the negotiations the defendant represented to the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
The learned trial judge tersely and correctly disposed *31of this case in concluding the statement of his reasons for granting the nonsuit when he said: “Wasserman may be entitled to recover his individual loss for breach of this warranty by Fleisher in an issue properly framed, but there was no warranty to Arnold of which he could take advantage in this suit. The pleadings do not warrant a verdict for plaintiff under the evidence presented for the damages claimed.”
The suit was brought by Wasserman to the use of himself and Arnold. The statement alleges that in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Seigworth v. LeffelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- Freyman v. KnechtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
3Cited by3 opinions
- Allen v. Mitten Bank Securities Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Wood v. EvanitzskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Kamel's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County · 1941