Ainesworth v. D. B. Martin Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 184, Oct. T., 1921, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1918, No. 2271, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of B. M. Ainesworth v. D. B. Martin Company, a Corporation. Assumpsit on written contract. Before Patterson, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $343.27, and judgment was entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 184, Oct. T., 1921, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1918, No. 2271, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of B. M. Ainesworth v. D. B. Martin Company, a Corporation. Assumpsit on written contract. Before Patterson, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $343.27, and judgment was entered thereon. Defendant appealed. Error assigned, among others, was in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. The contract was rescinded under date of October 31, 1918, and no liability…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Porter, J.,
The plaintiff brought this action to recover the amount alleged to be due him for services rendered to the defendant, as assistant purchasing agent. He recovered a judgment in the court below and the defendant appeals. The parties agreed, at the trial, upon the following facts: The contract, dated May 2,1918, under which the plaintiff was employed, was in writing and contained the following covenants material to the determination of the *492rights of the parties to this action: “1. The party of the first part (the defendant) hereby employs the party of the second part as its…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hukill v. Highway Trailer Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Malta v. Houck, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1954