Sherman v. Consolidated Dental Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 119, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1899, No. 914, dismissing exceptions to report of referee in case of Charles E. Sherman v. Consolidated Dental Manufacturing Company. Assumpsit for a balance alleged to be due under a contract in writing.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 119, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1899, No. 914, dismissing exceptions to report of referee in case of Charles E. Sherman v. Consolidated Dental Manufacturing Company. Assumpsit for a balance alleged to be due under a contract in writing. The case was referred to E. Hunn Hanson, Esq., under the act of May 14, 1874. The principal question before- the referee was whether the plaintiff should bear the expenses of a business conducted under an agreement in writing between the parties. On this subject the referee found the following facts…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
The substantial issue between the parties is as to which shall be chargeable with the expenses of the business. The contract provided:
“ IV. The party of the first part agrees to pay to the party of the second part as condensation for his services in selling its goods a sum of money equal to the difference between the list and trade prices of every article so consigned to him.
“V. The party of the second part agrees to send to the party of the first part .... a monthly statement show*450ing the sales .... and to remit with said statement a check or draft for an amount…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Dimmick v. Banning, Cooper & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. HeirsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Bower v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Commonwealth v. Katzenberg, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1975
- Findsen v. KijakaziDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2022
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.