Legal Opinion

Wolstenholme, Inc. v. Jos. Randall Bro., Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 30, 1928No. Appeal, 226PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Schaffer,

This action was brought to recover the purchase price of a material known as “artificial silk carded” sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant. There is no dispute about the amount of material bought and the price. Plaintiff claims $8,350.14. Defendant denies any indebtedness, counterclaiming for $14,969.73, alleging that the material was sold with an express warranty by plaintiff that it would be of uniform quality and of the same uniform quality as that furnished on a previous order, which warranty was breached, with resultant damage to the concern to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Buckbee v. P. Hohenadel, Jr., Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1915
  2. Griffin v. Metal Product Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  3. Vendig v. Union League of Phila.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Raby, Inc. v. Ward-Meehan Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  5. Lissberger v. KelloggSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1909

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Neville Chemical Company v. Union Carbide CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
  2. Grupe v. GlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Beal v. General Motors CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1973
  4. Keystone Diesel E. Co., Inc. v. IrwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Krauss v. GreenbargCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943

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

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

Powered by the Exa API