Scholler Bros. v. Otto A. C. Hagen Corp.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Reno, J.,
In this action in assumpsit the court below dismissed plaintiff’s reply questioning the legal sufficiency of the new matter alleged by defendant and has ordered the parties to proceed to the arbitration contended to be required by the contract in suit. Plaintiff has taken this appeal.
The statement of claim averred that on December 15, 1939, plaintiff, a manufacturer of textile soaps, and defendant, a dealer in oils and chemicals, entered into a verbal agreement for the purchase by plaintiff of a tank car of acidulated corn oil soapstock, which agreement was the subject of a…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Goldstein v. Int. L. G. W. U.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Goldstein v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' UnionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Turner Construction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Isaac v. Donegal & Conoy Mutual Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Bashford v. West Miami Land Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Emmaus Municipal Authority v. EltzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Cassara v. WoffordSupreme Court of Florida · 1951
- Hassler v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Andrew v. CUNA Brokerage Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Reisman v. Ranoel Realty Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.