McGowan v. Lustig-Burgerhoff Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Linn, J.,
Plaintiff sued for damages resulting from defendant’s refusal to receive a car of tomatoes alleged to have been bought by defendant through a broker, Stanley, acting as defendant’s agent. When the tomatoes arrived at Scranton, defendant rejected them as not of the quality and condition purchased. Thé defense was two-fold: (1) that the defendant bought of Stanley as principal, and not of plaintiff through Stanley’s agency; (2) that in any event the sale memorandum signed by Stanley was insufficient to charge defendant under section 4 of the Sales Act of 1915 P. L. 543.
The…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Buehler v. United States Fashion Plate Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Mason-Heflin Coal Co. v. CurrieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Manufacturers Light & Heat Co. v. LampSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Smith v. Import Drug Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Falconer v. MazessSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Penn Discount Corp. v. SharpSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Martz v. BowerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Moll Et Ux. v. DicksonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- N. V. Reinders' Olie en Veevoederfabrieken v. Imperial Products Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.