Aquadro v. Crandall-McKenzie & Henderson, Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Wright, J.,
Mrs. Mathilda Aquadro brought suit in assumpsit to recover the value of certain rugs which she had entrusted to the defendant for dry cleaning, and which were returned in damaged condition. Following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the court en banc granted a new trial. The plaintiff has appealed.
At the trial appellant testified that she sent five green wool rugs to appellee, specifying that they be dry cleaned for the purpose of removing surface soil. When the rugs were returned they Avere marked Avitk tan stains which substantially destroyed their value. It…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Jones Et Vir v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Dahlstrom v. ShrumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Schentzel v. Philadelphia National League ClubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Schell v. Miller North Broad Storage Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- MARTIN v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Dunn v. TetiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Dallas v. F.M. Oxford Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- United States Gypsum Co. v. Schiavo Bros.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1979
- Costanzo v. Jim Belcher Buick, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Leprino Foods Co. v. Gress Poultry, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2005
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.