Horewitz v. Franklin Foundry Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 162, Oct. T., 1923, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Venango Co., Aug. T., 1921, No. 47, on verdict directed for defendant, in case of Charles Horewitz v. Franklin Foundry Co. Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before Criswell, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Judgment on directed verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was portion of charge directing verdict for defendant, quoting it.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Walling,
Plaintiff is a junk dealer at Butler and defendant a corporation in business at Franklin. The action is based on defendant’s alleged breach of a contract for the purchase of a quantity of scrap iron. The trial judge directed a verdict for defendant and, from judgment entered thereon, plaintiff brought this appeal. We are satisfied from an examination of the record that the case was for the jury. Plaintiff’s averment that on March 12, 1920, he contracted orally to sell the defendant five hundred tons of number one machinery scrap, at $42 a ton, is supported by his…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Miles v. MetzgerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Wissahickon Realty Corp. v. BoyleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Schreibstein v. CohenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Rieger v. Pennsylvania Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1940