Legal Opinion

Buhl Malleable Co. v. Hudson

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 15, 1919No. 5520Published

At Law. Action by the Buhl Malleable Company against William F. Hudson. Verdict for plaintiff. Sur motion by defendant for new trial.

1Opinion of the Court

DICKINSON, District Judge.

The position of the defendant now taken is characterized by his counsel as wholly technical. On its face it seems also to be ungracious, because the defendant is complaining of the only thing in the trial which gave him the possibility of a verdict in his favor. This point is, however, neither as technical nor as ungracious as it appears to be. It has this claim of merit. The defendant had been buying on his own account castings which were sold a:id delivered to him by the plaintiff. On his version of the facts in this case these castings were neither sold nor…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Vallee Bros. Electrical Co. v. North Penn Iron Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906

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

Powered by the Exa API