Gordesky Gordesky v. Ginsburg
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 28, Oct. T., 1923, by defendant, from judgment of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Feb. T., 1922, No. 532, on verdict for plaintiffs, in the case of Philip Gordesky and Sidney Gordesky, copartners, trading as The Franklin Tobacco Company, v. Rose Ginsburg. Assumpsit to recover for merchandise sold and delivered. Before Walsh, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict for plaintiffs in the sum of ’$773.71 and judgment thereon.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 28, Oct. T., 1923, by defendant, from judgment of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Feb. T., 1922, No. 532, on verdict for plaintiffs, in the case of Philip Gordesky and Sidney Gordesky, copartners, trading as The Franklin Tobacco Company, v. Rose Ginsburg. Assumpsit to recover for merchandise sold and delivered. Before Walsh, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict for plaintiffs in the sum of ’$773.71 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was refusal for defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Gawthrop, J.,
This was an action to recover for merchandise sold and delivered. The statement of claim contained the common counts in indebitatus assumpsit and on a quantum meruit and a copy of plaintiffs’ book account. Defendant set up in her affidavit of defense that she did not purchase or enter into any contract for the purchase of goods from plaintiff, that she did not order or receive any merchandise from plaintiff, and averred that the goods were sold to her husband, Louis Ginsburg, on the day on which the goods were charged to her by plaintiff, and that he ordered the goods…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- A. & S. Wilson Co. v. ReighardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911