Wolstenholme, Inc. v. Jos. Randall Bro., Inc.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Buckbee v. P. Hohenadel, Jr., Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1915
- Griffin v. Metal Product Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Vendig v. Union League of Phila.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Raby, Inc. v. Ward-Meehan Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Lissberger v. KelloggSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1909
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Neville Chemical Company v. Union Carbide CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
- Grupe v. GlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Beal v. General Motors CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1973
- Keystone Diesel E. Co., Inc. v. IrwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Krauss v. GreenbargCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.