Martin v. Zahnizer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 149, April T., 1899, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Butler Co., March T., 1897, No. 55, in favor of plaintiffs. Opinion by Orlady, J. Assumpsit. Before Greer, P. J. It appears from the record that a judgment on a verdict in favor of plaintiffs was reversed by the Superior Court in an opinion reported in 9 Pa.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 149, April T., 1899, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Butler Co., March T., 1897, No. 55, in favor of plaintiffs. Opinion by Orlady, J. Assumpsit. Before Greer, P. J. It appears from the record that a judgment on a verdict in favor of plaintiffs was reversed by the Superior Court in an opinion reported in 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 18. On the second trial of the case it appears from the record that this was an action to recover damages for the breach of a parol contract which the plaintiffs alleged defendants made with them in the summer of 1895, to buy a half interest in a block of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Oklady, J.,
The testimony adduced on the second trial of this case was sufficient to warrant the jury in returning a verdict for the plaintiff. Zahnizer’s use of the words “ we ” and “ us ” in his conversations with Martin, and the mere payment of the rental and order by the checks of the East End Oil Co., were not of themselves sufficient to make the oil company liable for his acts. These acts taken in connection with the facts which were admitted in the pleadings: that he was a member of the partnership known as the East End Oil Co. and acted as its manager; that he consulted with…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Martin v. ZahnizerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
3Cited by1 opinion
- Flexlume Corp. v. NorrisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929