Legal Opinion

Lit Bros. v. Honeywell Et Ux

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 17, 1936No. Appeal, 335Published

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Rhodes, J.,

Plaintiff instituted an action in assumpsit against Ernest Honeywell and Margaret Honeywell, his wife, for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered to them. Plaintiff’s statement set forth that the goods were purchased on a coin issued by plaintiff to wife defendant and charged to her, and that husband, defendant was liable because the goods so sold and delivered were necessaries. Defendants filed an affidavit of defense raising questions of law. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended statement of claim. In the amended statement of claim, plaintiff does not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Munhall v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  2. Strawbridge & Clothier, Inc. v. ShecterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Kind v. BodekSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917

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

Powered by the Exa API