Legal Opinion

Hagedorn v. Haber

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 18, 1916No. Appeal, No. 149PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal, No. 149 Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Feb. T., 1916, No. 51, for plaintiffs, in case of A. Hagedorn, H. Rosenfelt and M. Myers, trading as Hagedorn’s Model Shop v. Henry Haber and Sadie Haber. Assumpsit for wearing material sold and delivered. Before Cassidy, J. The case was tried by the court without a jury. Yerdict and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for $123.58. Sadie Haber appealed.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 149 Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Feb. T., 1916, No. 51, for plaintiffs, in case of A. Hagedorn, H. Rosenfelt and M. Myers, trading as Hagedorn’s Model Shop v. Henry Haber and Sadie Haber. Assumpsit for wearing material sold and delivered. Before Cassidy, J. The case was tried by the court without a jury. Yerdict and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for $123.58. Sadie Haber appealed. Error assigned was in entering judgment for plaintiff.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

This action was brought against the defendants to recover the price of wearing apparel sold to the appellant and alleged to have been necessary. The appellant’s husband did not appeal and the sole question here is whether the evidence supports the judgment against the wife. It appears from the defendant’s testimony that she bought a “suit” and a gown and that they were necessary for her use. Evidence was offered by the plaintiffs that the purchases were made by Mrs. Haber and that she solicited and obtained a credit in her own name at that time. The evidence brings the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Moore v. CopleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  2. Hazleton National Bank v. KintzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
  3. Peter Adams Paper Co. v. CassardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  4. Davidson v. McCandlish & SonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Lit Bros. v. HareSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  2. Wimmer v. Kendall, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1925

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

Powered by the Exa API