Bruch v. Shafer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal No. 87, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant from judgment of O. P. Northampton Co., Sept. T., 1908, No. 32, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Grover Bruch v. Howard S. Shafer. Assumpsit for money had and received. Before Scott, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court, and by the report of Bruch v. Shafer, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 612. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,577.11. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal No. 87, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant from judgment of O. P. Northampton Co., Sept. T., 1908, No. 32, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Grover Bruch v. Howard S. Shafer. Assumpsit for money had and received. Before Scott, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court, and by the report of Bruch v. Shafer, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 612. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,577.11. Defendant appealed. Error assigned, among others, was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Moschzisker,
This record, viewed from the standpoint of the verdict rendered, shows a very simple case which can be summed up as follows: A and B were desirous of jointly acquiring the business of C. B by authority of A entered into negotiations with C, and they finally agreed upon terms to be reduced to a writing, which was to be executed by all the parties as the contract of purchase. The price to be paid for the business was $12,000, “the sum of $1,300 to be paid on the day of the signing” of the agreement. C was desirous of getting immediate possession of the $1,300,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bruch v. ShaferSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
3Cited by4 opinions
- Peacock v. HorneSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
- Willard F. Deputy & Co v. HastingsSuperior Court of Delaware · 1923
- Stephens v. CarraraSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Dean v. DEANSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1956