Maxwell v. Schaefer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Jones,
Schaefer and Halpern, the named defendants, of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, were engaged in the manufacture of a quick-drying enamel paint capable of being sprayed on surfaces with a unit sprayer in the paint container. The product was marketed under the trade name “Spritzit” which, in Pennsylvania Dutch, means “spray it”. Being desirous of securing a wider market for their manufactures, Schaefer and Halpern entered into a written agreement with Maxwell, the plaintiff, on November 1, 1950, which gave him the exclusive right to the commercial distribution of “Spritzit”.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wood v. . Duff-GordonNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Rice v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Plunkett Chemical Co. v. ReeveSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Harris Calorific Co. v. MarraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Taylor v. KaufholdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
3Cited by34 opinions
- Thorsen v. Iron and Glass BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- John G. Bryant Co. v. Sling Testing & Repair, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Moorhead v. Crozer Chester Medical CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Aiken Industries, Inc. v. Estate of WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Cohen v. Albert Einstein Medical CenterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.