Legal Opinion

Mange-Wiener Co. v. Patton Worsham Drug Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 14, 1905No. Appeal, No. 107PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal, No. 107, Oct. T., 1904, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1902, No. 859, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of Mange-Wiener Company, Limited v. Patten Worsham Drug Company. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. At the trial it appeared that plaintiffs through one Max Herz, a salesman, sold to defendants a quantity of cigars.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 107, Oct. T., 1904, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1902, No. 859, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of Mange-Wiener Company, Limited v. Patten Worsham Drug Company. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. At the trial it appeared that plaintiffs through one Max Herz, a salesman, sold to defendants a quantity of cigars. The defendants alleged that the goods had proved unsaleable, and that Herz had thereupon rescinded the contract, and made a new contract of bailment. It appeared that the goods were destroyed by fire after the alleged new contract…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The assignments of error relate to the charge of the court and the refusal to affirm the defendants’ points. A careful examination of the charge, in the light of the evidence, leads us to the conclusion that the case was as favorably presented for the defendants as the evidence would justify. There was no evidence of express authority in Plerz to rescind the contract. No implied authority to rescind and accept a return of the goods is to be inferred from the mere fact of his authority to sell: Mechem on Agency, sec. 360. The extent of his power became a question of…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. Foell Packing Co. v. HarrisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. Gardiner v. D. P. S. Nichols Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  3. Marquette-Bailey Lumber Co. v. GibboneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. W. J. Gilmore Drug Co. v. GoldsmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  5. Doll v. RyderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

3 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