Legal Opinion

Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Howell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 8, 1922No. Appeal, No. 311PublishedCited by 55 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

Plaintiff sued to recover the difference between the market and contract prices of certain sugar, which it alleged it had sold to defendant but he had refused to accept ; the pleadings were duly filed, a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense was taken and made absolute, and defendant appeals.

After the argument of the rule in the court below, but before it was decided, defendant petitioned the court for leave to amend its affidavit in certain specified particulars ; the petition was dismissed and this is assigned as error. It was error:…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Mason-Heflin Coal Co. v. CurrieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. Manufacturers Light & Heat Co. v. LampSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  3. Bordentown Banking Co. v. ResteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
  4. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. LippincottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  5. McKnight v. Manuf. N. Gas Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Washington County1892

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by55 opinions

  1. Am. Products Co. v. Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  2. Parish Mfg. Corp. v. Martin-Parry Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  3. Electric Reduction Co. v. Colonial Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  4. Jessup & Moore Paper Co. v. Bryant Paper Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  5. Kingsley Clothing Manufacturing Co. v. JacobsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942

50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API