Legal Opinion
Pennsylvania Exchange Bank v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided April 3, 1959No. 265-57PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WHITAKER, Judge.
The Pennsylvania Exchange Bank and Samuel H. Roseman are assignees for the benefit of creditors of Joseph Lerner & Son, Inc. In this opinion we shall refer to Joseph Lerner & Son, Inc., as the plaintiff.
This suit is for the balance of the contract price withheld by defendant, because of plaintiff’s alleged anticipatory breach of the contract by making an assignment for the benefit of its creditors. Defendant also counterclaims for damages for the breach. It is before us on cross-motions for summary judgment and on assignees’ motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaims.
As a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Roehm v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Central Trust Co. of Ill. v. Chicago Auditorium Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1912
- Tennessee Soap Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
3Cited by9 opinions
- Stone Forest Industries, Inc. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Enron Federal Solutions, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- Consolidated Airborne Systems, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Bushnell, Receiver v. KRAFFTIndiana Court of Appeals · 1962
- American Savings Bank, F.A. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.