Legal Opinion

Simplex Steel Products Co. v. Goleman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 17, 1938No. Appeal, 218PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Baldrige, J.,

The plaintiff brought this action in assumpsit to recover a balance alleged to be due by defendant for cer tain steel frames, studs, channels, and pins used as a base for plaster board and known as the “Simplex System.”

The defendant signed the following order addressed to the plaintiff:

“Gentlemen:
“Please enter our order for the Simplex System used on the Bennett Hall Apartments, Camac & Bindley Streets, for the Carroll Construction Co. to be shipped when notified to Vincent Prendeville, Tabor Station, Philadelphia, Pa. via Philadelphia & Reading Railroad.
“Very truly…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kroegher v. McConway & Torley Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
  2. Tarentum Lumber Co. v. MarvinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  3. Carey v. BuckleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  4. Brillinger v. Northern Central RailwaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Simkins v. BarcusSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Litton Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Litton Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Luscombe Engineering Co. v. Rolle Casting Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County1950

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

Powered by the Exa API