Legal Opinion

Mulholland v. Sterling Motor Truck Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 6, 1932No. Appeal, 266PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff’s amended bill in equity sought cancellation of four conditional sales contracts and a bailment lease and return of all money paid thereunder on the ground that at the time of entering into these contracts William P. Mulholland was a lunatic without lucid intervals. Testimony was taken before a chancellor, who found as a fact that, at the time of entering into each of the contracts, Mulholland was not a lunatic and was mentally capable of making contracts validly binding upon him. Plaintiff’s bill was accordingly dismissed. The chancellor’s findings and decree entered…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Belmont Laboratories, Inc. v. HeistSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  2. Feuerstein v. New Century Realty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. Harvey v. Turner & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
  4. Rubins v. HamnettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  5. Moore v. HersheySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. HartmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Mulholland v. Pittsburgh National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  3. Youngwood Building & Loan Ass'n v. HenrySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. Feely EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  5. United States v. KoenigDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1956

3 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