Legal Opinion

Harris & Konick v. Gottlieb

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 5, 1922No. Appeal, 57Published

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

The plaintiffs in this action of assumpsit seek to recover the amount of the cash payment, made in advance, upon a purchase from the defendant of a lot of “Universalkloth,” which they alleged the defendant had failed to deliver as by the contract required. Plaintiffs recovered a verdict at the trial, but the court entered judgment in favor of the defendant non obstante veredicto, which action is here assigned for error.

The only question which we are called upon to consider is the sufficiency of the evidence favorable to the plaintiffs to require the submission of the case…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fairfax Textile Mills, Inc. v. FeingoldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. American Steel Foundries v. Metal Products Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API