Legal Opinion

Goldman v. Lichtenstul

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 29, 1935No. Appeal, 207PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Parker, J.,

The plaintiff has a judgment against the defendants, for merchandise sold and delivered on a parol contract, and the defendants have appealed to this court complaining that a new trial should have been granted to them on account of trial errors. The sole question in issue was one of fact, and no question of substantive law is involved.

Plaintiff and defendants entered into a parol contract which contemplated the production and sale of uniforms for use by large employers of labor. The merchandise was to be manufactured by plaintiff and the business procured, sales…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Patterson v. Marine N. BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
  2. Mendenhall v. MendenhallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
  3. Chestnut Hill & Spring House Turnpike Road Co. v. Montgomery CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  4. Blume v. HartmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
  5. Shade v. LlewellynSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Burish v. DigonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  2. Burish v. DigonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. Cisz v. Meyers, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cambria County1954

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

Powered by the Exa API