Legal Opinion

Brenner v. Pecarsky

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 8, 1925No. Appeal 87PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Gawthrop, J.,

This was an action in assumpsit to recover the balance of the purchase price of a motor truck sold by plaintiff to defendant. The sole defense raised by the affidavit of defense and supported by defendant’s evidence at the trial was that plaintiff had represented that the truck had a capacity of one and one-half tons, while, as a matter of fact, its capacity was only three- quarters of a ton. At the trial plaintiff admitted, under cross-examination, that the truck was a used motor truck, and that he had not complied with any of the requirements of the Act of June 30,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Lamb v. CondonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  2. Swing v. MunsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  3. Vandegrift v. VandegriftSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  4. Columbia Bank & Bridge Co. v. HaldemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
  5. Stein v. SlomkowskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Braham & Co. v. Steinard-Hannon Motor Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  2. F. F. Bollinger Co. v. Widmann Brewing Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  3. Nevling v. Commercial Credit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  4. Howarth Et Ux. v. GilmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  5. Norristown Ford Co. v. Metropolitan Auto Dealer, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957

7 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