Willock v. Crescent Oil Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 164, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from order of G. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1894, No. 234, overruling exceptions to report of referee. Exceptions to report of referee, James' S. Young, Esq. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Errors assigned were in overruling exceptions to report of referee.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Williams,
The defendant was a dealer in crude petroleum. The plaintiff was a refiner with a refinery known as the Waverly Oil Works, located in Pittsburg, Pa. On August 13,1892, they entered into ■an agreement in writing with each other by the terms of which the plaintiff agreed to buy from the defendant “ all the crude oil *247that I may need, or use at the Waverly Oil Works near Fifty-fourth street, Pittsburg, Pa. during the coining year, that is, from August 13, 1892, until August 13, 1893.”
The defendant company agreed to sell him the oil that he might need or use at 1ns…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Forsyth v. PalmerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Clevenstine's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851
3Cited by1 opinion
- J. W. Denio Milling Co. v. MalinWyoming Supreme Court · 1917