Goldman v. Lichtenstul
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Patterson v. Marine N. BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Mendenhall v. MendenhallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Chestnut Hill & Spring House Turnpike Road Co. v. Montgomery CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Blume v. HartmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- Shade v. LlewellynSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
3Cited by3 opinions
- Burish v. DigonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Burish v. DigonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Cisz v. Meyers, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cambria County1954