Thomas & Sons v. Loose, Seaman & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Berhs county: of January Term, 1885, No. 291. Assumpsit brought by J. H. Thomas, trading under the firm name of J. H. Thomas & Sons, against Samuel A. Loose, Charles F. Seaman and Peter M. Shollenberger, trading under the firm name of Loose, Seaman & Co. Plea, non assumpsit with leave, and. issue.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Berhs county: of January Term, 1885, No. 291. Assumpsit brought by J. H. Thomas, trading under the firm name of J. H. Thomas & Sons, against Samuel A. Loose, Charles F. Seaman and Peter M. Shollenberger, trading under the firm name of Loose, Seaman & Co. Plea, non assumpsit with leave, and. issue. The following are the facts of the case as they appeared on the trial before"Hagenman, P. J. The plaintiff was engaged in business in Springfield, Ohio, under the name of J. II. Thomas & Sons. His business consisted in manufacturing hay-rakes and tedders, upon…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Trunkey
This action is founded on a contract signed by the parties. On the part of the plaintiffs its terms were negotiated by their agent; the first line provided that it was subject to their approval, and they' did approve it by their signature. Immediately following that line, in legible print, quite as bold as the print in most other parts of the contract, is the following: “It is agreed and understood that in writing and [¡riming this paper contains the full and entire agreement between the parties thereto, and no outside verbal understanding is of any force or effect whatever, and it is not to…
2Cited by46 opinions
- Erickson v. WiperNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
- Conley v. MervisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Kline v. KachmarSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Rogan EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Mallard v. EwingSupreme Court of Florida · 1935
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.