Dentzel v. Island Park Ass'n
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 94, Oct. T., 1910, by defendants, from judgment of Somerset Co., Sept. T., 1906, No. 244, on verdict for plaintiff in case of W. H. Dentzel, Administrator of G. A. Dentzel v. Island Park Association et al. Replevin for a carrousel. Before Kooser, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $6,550. Defendant appealed. Error assigned among others was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stewart,
This case called for binding instructions. The contract between buyer and seller was in writing, and so definite and explicit in its terms that it gave rise to no controversy whatever. It was not attempted to be shown that it had ever been rescinded or modified. G. A. Dentzel, whose legal representative is the plaintiff in the action; was the seller, and the Island Park Association, one of the defendants, was the buyer. The contract provided that the former for the sum of $5,500 was to manufacture for the latter a carrousel, with organ, motor and attachments. The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dannemiller v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Scott v. WellsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Smith v. Smith, Murphy, & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Schmertz v. DwyerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
- Bacharach & Co. v. Chester Freight Line, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County1890
3Cited by10 opinions
- McCullough's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Popper v. RosenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Hewitt-Robins, Inc. v. Link-Belt CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1966
- Storz Brewing Co. v. BrownNebraska Supreme Court · 1951
- Wade v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1924
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.