Lierz v. Morris
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 154, Oct. T., 1901, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., March T., 1901, No. 107, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Henry Lierz to use of Louis Goos v. E. Joy Morris. Assumpsit to recover royalties. The material portions of the plaintiff’s statement and affidavit of defense are set forth in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
W. D. Porter, J.,
This action was brought upon an agreement under seal entered into by Lierz and Morris, under the terms of which the latter acquired the right to erect and operate in Pastime Park, Philadelphia, a toboggan slide, the consideration to be paid for said privilege being fifteen per cent of the gross receipts. The statement makes it very clear that under the covenants of the agreement, Lierz having procured an extension of his own lease, the term for which Morris was to enjoy the right conferred by the agreement had been extended until January 1,1904. Goos succeeded by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hunt v. GilmoreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
- Lanigan ex rel. Stichter v. KilleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Maule v. AshmeadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Osborne's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
3Cited by4 opinions
- Blue Star Navigation Co. v. Emmons Coal Mining Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Bentz v. BarclaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Barclay v. Edlis Barber Supply Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Wanamaker v. QuinnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905