Swift & Co. v. Meehan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Me. Justice Simpson,
Plaintiff sued defendants to recover damages for the breach of an alleged contract. The trial judge refused defendants’ point for binding instructions, and plaintiff recovered a verdict for $10,266. The court in banc entered judgment for defendants non obstante veredicto, upon two grounds: (1) The parties had not entered into a contract; and (2) The alleged agreement, even if it had been made, would not have been enforceable, because of section 4 of the Sales Act of May 19, 1915, P. L. 543. In disposing of plaintiff’s appeal from that judgment, we shall limit our…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Wilson v. . Lewiston Mill Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Manufacturers Light & Heat Co. v. LampSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Rineer v. CollinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Target Sportswear, Inc. v. Clearfield FoundationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Conaway v. 20th Century Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Vitro Manufacturing Co. v. Standard Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Stucker v. ShumakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. EisemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.