Legal Opinion

Garrett v. Faust

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 7, 1949No. Civ. No. 7806PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Scott v. Baltimore & OR Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
  2. Clark v. Essex Wire Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  3. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis v. StaengelCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1941
  4. Dannals v. Sylvania TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  5. Kelly v. Scranton Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Garrett v. FaustCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
  2. Stein v. MeyerDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1957
  3. Butler v. WattsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1958
  4. Field v. Omaha Standard, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API