Solomon v. Moyer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 92, Oct. T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1916, No. 322, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Harry A. Solomon, trading as Harry A. Solomon & Company, v. Ralph T. Moyer. Assumpsit to recover damages for breach of a contract to purchase 1,000 gallons of toluol.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 92, Oct. T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1916, No. 322, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Harry A. Solomon, trading as Harry A. Solomon & Company, v. Ralph T. Moyer. Assumpsit to recover damages for breach of a contract to purchase 1,000 gallons of toluol. Before FinletTER, J. At the trial defendant presented the following points both of which were refused: 1. Under all the evidence in this case, verdict should be for the defendant. (2) 2. If the jury believe that the defendant was cashier of the North Penn Bank and if they…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kephart, J.,
The appellant, a purchaser of toluol, seeks to evade liability because he was at the time of the purchase the cashier of a State bank and as such forbidden under the Act of 1860 to make such purchase. The affidavit defends on the ground that he acted in a representative capacity, as agent for another who alone was responsible, and the appellee knew this fact. The court below, therefore, did not commit error in refusing to admit evidence shifting the defense laid in the affidavit. He was endeavoring by it to claim immunity from liability because of his own moral…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Potamkin v. Wells Fargo & Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916