Legal Opinion

Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. John

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 7, 1924No. Appeal, No. 142PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Sadler,

The firm of John & Bros, conducts a grocery business, and purchased needed sugar at various times from the plaintiff. Its practice in buying was to apply to the *107J. H. Huston Co., a representative of the Refining Company, which here sues, and the former, as selling agent of the latter, had the orders forwarded, accepted, and filled. In three instances, between July 1 and July 15, 1920, — there being at the time difficulty in securing an adequate supply, — the broker made reservations of a number of barrels for subsequent delivery to the defendant. The allotments…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Wilson v. . Lewiston Mill Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
  2. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  3. Manufacturers Light & Heat Co. v. LampSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  4. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. LippincottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  5. Soles v. HickmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Target Sportswear, Inc. v. Clearfield FoundationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Vitro Manufacturing Co. v. Standard Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Rothenberg v. H. Rothstein & SonsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
  4. Birdzell v. Utah Oil Refining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Brister & Koester Lumber Corp. v. American Lumber Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946

11 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