Reed v. Harrison
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 88, Jan. T., 1900, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1898, No. 1289, on verdict for defendant in case of Alan H. Reed and George K. Reed, trading as Jacob Reed’s Sons v. Charles C. Harrison. Assumpsit to recover 100 shares of stock of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. Before Willson, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court gave binding instructions for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 88, Jan. T., 1900, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1898, No. 1289, on verdict for defendant in case of Alan H. Reed and George K. Reed, trading as Jacob Reed’s Sons v. Charles C. Harrison. Assumpsit to recover 100 shares of stock of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. Before Willson, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court gave binding instructions for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed. Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for defendant. The court erred in directing a verdict for defendant, and in not…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
The defendant by a lease dated May 31,1892 demised to the plaintiffs the rooms at Nos. 920 and 922 Chestnut street in the city of Philadelphia for five years from January 1, 1893. The lease contained this provision: “ Permission is hereby given the said lessees during their occupancy of said -premises to make all improvements and alterations thereto as they may require, and to do all repairs in and about the same at their own costs and expense: provided, the plans for said alterations shall be first submitted to and be approved by the lessor. The lessees…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Guarente v. Waldorf System, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960