Legal Opinion

Standard Oil Co. v. Armbruster

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 3, 1930No. 188Published

1Opinion of the CourtRichards, J.

It is insisted that the order for kerosene which Armbruster undertook to give, never reached the company, and to sustain this contention it is said that Mrs. DeGroff, who was not employed by the company, was a mere intermediary made use of by Armbruster to communicate his order for kerosene to her husband, the company’s agent. In View of the. fact that this telephone was listed in the name of the company and the business of DeGroff required him to be on the road much of the time delivering kerosene and gasoline., during which time his wife was in the habit of receiving orders for kerosene and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Catlin v. Union Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1916
  2. Dodd v. Louisville Bridge Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Kentucky · 1904

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

Powered by the Exa API