Legal Opinion

Family Budget Plan, Inc. v. Ede

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County

Decided August 5, 1955No. 383Published

1Opinion of the Court

Eckelberry, J.,

Replevin with bond. Preliminary objections to complaint.

In passing upon preliminary objections, we must accept as true all averments of material and relevant facts in the complaint. Accordingly, we find, at this procedural stage, the facts in this matter to be:

On August 2, 1952, Nash-Ringel, Inc., Albany, New York, as seller, sold a certain food freezer and food plan, under a conditional sales contract, to defendant, James Ede, Sr., as buyer, whose address then was Schenectady, New York.

The conditional sales contract provided as follows:

1. That the deferred balance was to be…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Titus v. WallickSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  2. Sheridan v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
  3. Blossom Products Corp. v. National Underwear Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. Meaker Galvanizing Co. v. Charles E. McInnes & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  5. Lee-Strauss Co. v. KellySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

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

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

Powered by the Exa API