Legal Opinion

Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Kane Milling & Grocery Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 23, 1923No. Appeal, No. 323PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephabt,

The court helow, in sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff’s statement of claim, relied on Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Howell, 274 Pa. 190. It is not necessary to restate what was there so lately decided; we will here merely point out what to us seems a sufficient barrier to plaintiff’s right to recover.

Plaintiff avers in its statement that the J. H. Huston Co., Inc., was a merchandise broker, “duly authorized by defendant, to the knowledge of plaintiff, to make on behalf of defendant the contracts hereinafter referred to,” and “duly authorized by plaintiff, to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Wallace v. MorganIndiana Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Albus v. ToomeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  4. William Whitman & Co. v. Namquit Worsted Co.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1913
  5. Ambler v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Aulich v. CraigmyleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1933
  2. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. JohnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  3. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. EisemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Straesser-Arnold Co. v. Franklin Sugar Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1925
  5. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. William D. Mullen Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1925

7 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