Legal Opinion

Kind v. Bodek

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 13, 1917No. Appeal, No. 181PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal, No. 181, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1916, No. 433, for plaintiff on case tried by the court without a jury in suit of Frank Kind, Oscar Kind and Philip Kind, trading as S. Kind & Sons, v. Mrs. Joseph J. Bodek. Assumpsit to recover the sum of $215, the cost of a diamond bar pin, alleged to have been sold and charged to the defendant.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 181, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1916, No. 433, for plaintiff on case tried by the court without a jury in suit of Frank Kind, Oscar Kind and Philip Kind, trading as S. Kind & Sons, v. Mrs. Joseph J. Bodek. Assumpsit to recover the sum of $215, the cost of a diamond bar pin, alleged to have been sold and charged to the defendant. Knowles, J., who tried the case without a jury summarized the evidence as follows: “The plaintiffs testified that the defendant purchased the diamond bar pin upon her own credit, giving the…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Williams, J.,

In an action to recover the price, of a diamond bar pin alleged to have been sold to a wife upon her individual credit, defendant denied undertaking to pay for it, and alleged it was bought upon her husband’s credit.

Plaintiffs’ clerk testified: “Q.- — Do you remember selling the defendant, Mrs. Bodek, anything? A. — Yes, sir. Q. — You sold this diamond bar pin? A. — Yes, sir...... The understanding with me was the pin was to be charged and sent to her......Q. — Did she say anything to you about it? A. — To charge the pin to her. Q. — Did she say that? A. — Yes, sir. Q.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Moore v. CopleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  2. Clothier v. WolffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
  3. McCreery v. ScullySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
  4. Brouse v. OligerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Nash v. RaunCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
  2. Lit Bros. v. Honeywell Et UxSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API