Legal Opinion

Am. Products Co. v. Refining Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 3, 1923No. Appeal, No. 110PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Sadler,

Plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for defendant’s alleged breach of contract to supply five carloads of oil. The statement, as amended, averred it was orally agreed that the product should be furnished at a fixed price; also a refusal to ship, on demand. An affidavit of defense denied the existence of any such understanding and liability. The dispute was submitted to arbitrators, who found for plaintiff, and, after trial on appeal, a jury rendered a like decision. Binding instructions for defendant had been requested and refused; later, its motion for…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Mason-Heflin Coal Co. v. CurrieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  3. Manufacturers Light & Heat Co. v. LampSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  4. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Lykens Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  5. Barclay v. BarclaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Brown v. HahnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  2. Sferra v. UrlingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  3. Thommen v. Aldine Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  4. First Pool Gas Coal Co. v. Wheeler Run Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  5. Martin v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952

17 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