Legal Opinion

Suburban Gas Co. v. Mollica

United States District Court

Decided January 26, 1943PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Soerbo, D. C. J.

On April 8th, 1939, the plaintiff, Suburban Gas Company, a Dew Jersey corporation, and Phillip Mollica, the defendant, entered into a written agreement, the terms and clauses of which may be briefly stated as follows:(a) The defendant was to permit the Company to connect to his property all necessary equipment needed to supply gas, and the company had the option, upon the expiration of the contract or upon “failure to meet the'terms of this contract,” to remove this equipment; (b) the defendant agreed, further, to purchase his gas requirements from the Suburban Gas *119Company for…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Cotheal v. . TalmageNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
  2. Clement v. . CashNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
  3. Cushing v. DrewMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
  4. Brownold v. RodbellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
  5. Bilz v. PowellSupreme Court of Colorado · 1911

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Shel-Al Corporation v. American National Insurance Company and Exchange Security BankCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
  2. Beasley v. HorrellCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1993
  3. E.F. Coe T/a Cabana Motel v. Thermasol, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
  4. Coe v. Thermasol, Ltd.District Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API