Legal Opinion

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Lenowitz

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 5, 1928No. Appeal 30PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Buehler v. U. S. Fashion Plate Co., 269 Pa. 428.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

The action below was assumpsit to recover $1,348, ■with interest, as the contract priee of a car of sugar shipped by plaintiff to defendants and accepted by them. At the conclusion of the testimony the learned trial judge directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the amount claimed and, after denying defendants’ motions for a new trial and for judgment n. o. v., entered judgment thereon, and we now have thi's appeal by the defendants. The only substantial reason assigned by defendants for refusing to pay for the carload of sugar admittedly received by them was that…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Gross v. Exeter Machine Works, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. O'Neil v. BurnettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  4. Appleby v. BarrettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
  5. Frick & Lindsay Co. v. Kent & KervinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McCall Co. v. KershbaumSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  2. Barger v. Chevron, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County1972
  3. Metropolitan Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Browne, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County1930

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

Powered by the Exa API