Legal Opinion

Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Eiseman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 10, 1927No. Appeal, 229PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Sadler,

Eiseman & Sons, defendants, had purchased sugar at various times from the Franklin Sugar Refining Company, plaintiff, through the latter’s representative, Huston & Co. The practice followed was for the agent of the seller to send notice to the buyer of the fact that a certain amount had been reserved, deliverable within a fixed time, accompanied by a request that the receipt of the allotment be acknowledged. The manner of doing business has been set forth in detail in Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Howell, 274 Pa. 190, where like dealings were considered, and a…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Mason-Heflin Coal Co. v. CurrieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  3. Mark v. Stuart-Howland Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  4. Cline v. MartinOhio Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Guppy v. MoltrupSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Viso v. WernerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Howland v. Iron Fireman Manufacturing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Snaith v. SnaithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Howland v. Iron Fireman Mfg. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Martin v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952

10 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