Garrett v. Faust
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
McGRANERY, District Judge.
Plaintiffs, who operate a small turkey farm in Texas, brought suit alleging that defendants, who maintained a large hatch' *484ery in Pennsylvania, had entered into a contract for the purchase of their eggs, and then failed to live up to their agreement. Plaintiffs recovered a verdict of $17,000 at the trial. Defendants now move to set aside the verdict and judgment, for a judgment in accordance with their motions for a directed verdict, and, in the alternative, for a new trial.
Defendants first contend that the amended complaint was based upon fraudulent…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Scott v. Baltimore & OR Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
- Clark v. Essex Wire Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis v. StaengelCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1941
- Dannals v. Sylvania TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Kelly v. Scranton Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Garrett v. FaustCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Stein v. MeyerDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1957
- Butler v. WattsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1958
- Field v. Omaha Standard, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983