Legal Opinion

McGowan v. Lustig-Burgerhoff Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 6, 1928No. Appeal 12PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Buehler v. United States Fashion Plate Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  3. Mason-Heflin Coal Co. v. CurrieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  4. Manufacturers Light & Heat Co. v. LampSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  5. Smith v. Import Drug Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Falconer v. MazessSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  2. Penn Discount Corp. v. SharpSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Martz v. BowerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  4. Moll Et Ux. v. DicksonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API