Hallowell v. Lierz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 300, Jan. T., 189-5,. by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1894, No. 1314, on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit on a contract in writing. Before Finletter, P. J. The contract upon which suit was brought was as follows: “ The publishers are not bound by any agreement other than that expressed on the face of this contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 300, Jan. T., 189-5,. by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1894, No. 1314, on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit on a contract in writing. Before Finletter, P. J. The contract upon which suit was brought was as follows: “ The publishers are not bound by any agreement other than that expressed on the face of this contract. “ Philadelphia, August 7th, 1893. “ Hollowell & Co., Publishers, 125 South Third Street: “ No verbal agreement recognized. “ Insert my advertisement in the National Theatre Pro-gramme to occupy space of one inch, D. C. 4th page, for…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Gbeen,
The defendant resists payment of the plaintiff’s claim because he says the plaixxtiff’s agent pi’omised to send him two theatre tickets every week, and said that he could change his advertisement whenever he wanted to. This was not contained in the written contract and the defendant testified that when he called the attention of the agent to the omission, the latter replied that he was the “ boss of the programme,” arxd “ I am the man who is running this business.” It is apparent therefore that the omitted part of the contract was not left out of the instrument by…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wolf v. RosenbachSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Philadelphia Record Co. v. SweetSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Union Car Advertising Co. v. YoungSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- P. F. Collier & Son v. Youngerman, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1922