Dain v. Loeffler
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 106, April T., 1916, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1914, No. 1352, on verdict for plaintiff in case of M. J. Dain v. R. W. Loeffler, et al. Assumpsit for selling stock of the Sanitary Enameling Specialty Company. Before Carnahan, J. At the trial it appeared that the suit was brought on a contract signed by the defendant, but not by the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 106, April T., 1916, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1914, No. 1352, on verdict for plaintiff in case of M. J. Dain v. R. W. Loeffler, et al. Assumpsit for selling stock of the Sanitary Enameling Specialty Company. Before Carnahan, J. At the trial it appeared that the suit was brought on a contract signed by the defendant, but not by the plaintiff. The material portion of the agreement is as follows : “Now, this agreement witnesseth, That the parties of the first part agree to give the exclusive option on the sale of all stock of the said The Sanitary…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Oblad y, P. J.,
The fact that the plaintiff did not formally sign the contract on which he relies, is not at all material. The defendants did sign it and the plaintiff acted in concert with them to carry out its provisions. The inducing clause recites, “The parties of the first part (defendants), are desirous of securing the services of the party of the second part (plaintiff), to dispose of certain blocks of stock,” and concludes with the defendant’s signatures, under seal. An original was delivered to the plaintiff, followed by his affirmative action in carrying out the provisions…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Grove v. HodgesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
- Patton's v. HassingerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Flannery v. DechertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
3Cited by1 opinion
- Byrne v. BushkoffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1955