Legal Opinion

Achenbach v. Kurtz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 1, 1932No. Appeal, 83PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Plaintiffs, administrators of the estate of Samuel Achenbach, deceased, sued to recover damages for alleged breach of contract, and appeal from the decree of the court below entering judgment for defendants.

On April 17,1924, plaintiffs’ decedent, Samuel Achenbach, bought from defendants, six $500 bonds of Kurtz Brothers. Pour days thereafter, Kurtz Brothers wrote Achenbach saying: “Referring to the six $500 bonds ......which you purchased April 17, will say that if at the end of one year you so desire, we will buy back these bonds for $2,850, the amount you paid for same. Should…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Vitro Manufacturing Co. v. Standard Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Helfenstein's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
  3. Emerson v. GraffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
  4. Neill v. HitchmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
  5. Marr v. ShawU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1892

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Cohen v. GoldbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. Biggins v. ShoreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Biggins v. ShoreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. Cohen v. GoldbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API