Hagy v. McGuire
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 314, Jan. T., 1891, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1888, No 874, on a verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit by J. Milton Hagy and John H. Blye, trading as Hagy & Blye against Charles A. McGuire and James McGuire. At the trial the following facts appeared.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 314, Jan. T., 1891, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1888, No 874, on a verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit by J. Milton Hagy and John H. Blye, trading as Hagy & Blye against Charles A. McGuire and James McGuire. At the trial the following facts appeared. On March 3, 1888, an agreement in writing was entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants by which the plaintiffs were made the full agents for the sale of “ all lumber made, worked, or manufactured by the defendants in the Southern states.” The defendants were to manufacture shingles…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The questions of fact in this case were properly submitted to the jury, and have been found against the appellants. We find nothing to criticise in the rulings of the learned judge below, either upon questions of evidence or the answers to points. Whether the Southern Lumber Co. was organized by the defendants in order to evade a compliance with their contract with the plaintiffs of March 3, 1883, was the pivotal fact in tbe case. It was not pretended that the appellants ever complied with this contract, or had attempted to do so. The evidence submitted upon this question fully…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lowry Watkins Mortgage Co. v. Turley-Bullington Mortgage Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1933