Wentzel v. Barbin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 63, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny County, June T., 1896, No. 279, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for breach of contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 63, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny County, June T., 1896, No. 279, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before Slagle, P. J. The contract, dated December 28, 1895, was as follows: “ For and in consideration of the sum of f2,000, R. M. Barbin, does hereby agree to transfer, sell and assign to the said Charles F. Wentzel, all his right, title and good-will to the Oakland paper route until now controlled by the said R. M. Barbin. It is further agreed that R. M. Barbin, shall use his best efforts in familiarizing the said…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
When the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff “ all his right, title and good-will to the Oakland paper route, until now, controlled by the said R. M. Barbin,” he became bound in honor and in law to carry out his contract in good faith. He was certainly not at liberty, especially after receiving a large part of the purchase money, to filch away from the plaintiff the veritable substance of that which he had sold. It was not like the setting up of another business of the same kind, but it was the taking away of the very thing he had sold that was complained of by the plaintiff.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Denawetz v. MilchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Fine v. LawlessTennessee Supreme Court · 1917
- In Re ThomasUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1999