Legal Opinion

Lukens v. Crozier

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 11, 1924No. Appeal, 231PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The following extracts from the opinion filed by President Judge Audenried, of the court below, upon overruling defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, properly dispose of all the questions involved in this appeal.

“The first question to be decided is whether the defendant is under any liability whatever to the plaintiff in this matter. There can be no doubt that C’rozier sent to Lukens the order on the strength of which the latter shipped the pipe in question. In sending this order he must have acted either on his own behalf, or as agent for Lukens, or as agent for…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wolff v. WilsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
  2. Hopkins v. EverlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
  3. Stiteler v. DitzenbergerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Ashland Towson Corp. v. KasunicSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  2. Cervitor Kitchens, Inc. v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1972
  3. Kennedy v. FaushSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  4. Cervitor Kitchens, Inc. v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API