Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Riddle Co. v. Taubel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 19, 1923No. Appeal, No. 168PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

Where time for the performance of a contract is extended from time to time, with no intention manifested to hold to literal performance, a party cannot rescind without a demand for strict compliance within a reasonable time: Forsyth v. North American Oil Co., 53 Pa. 168, 173; Price v. Beach, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 291, 295; Portland Ice Co. v. Connor, 24 Pa. Superior Ct. 493, 497; Goff-Kirby Coal Co. v. Marine Coal Co., 31 Pa. Superior Ct. 60, 63. What is a reasonable time in which to comply, where the. facts are undisputed, is for the court; otherwise, or where the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Leaming v. WiseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
  2. Swan v. Watertown Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
  3. Patterson v. GrahamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
  4. Forsyth v. North American Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
  5. Shilanski v. FarrellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Bogojavlensky v. LoganSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  2. Tinius Olsen Testing MacHine Co. v. Wolf Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  3. Warren Tank Car Co. v. DodsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. Dravo Contracting Co. v. James Rees & Sons Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  5. Parish Mfg. Corp. v. Martin-Parry Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API