Legal Opinion

Siegel v. Struble Bros., Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 29, 1942No. Appeal, 195PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hirt, J.,

Opinion by

Plaintiff bought a heating system, consisting of a furnace, a humidifier and an air conditioning unit, from the defendant. By the terms of the contract defendant agreed to supply the equipment and to install it in plaintiff’s house. There were no defects in design or materials and the various units of the system complied with standard engineering practices. The system would have operated in harmony if it had been properly installed. The proofs indicate that defendant was negligent in this respect. The humidifier pan, intended to be level, was set up in a tilted position…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Nock v. Coca Cola Bot. Wks. Pgh.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Ray v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  3. Mastel v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  4. Williams v. HaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
  5. Nirdlinger v. American District Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Phico Insurance v. Presbyterian Medical Services Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Raab v. Keystone InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Krauss v. GreenbargCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943
  4. Holt v. PariserSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  5. Bell Telephone Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API