Legal Opinion

Lippincott v. Stringer

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 14, 1922No. Appeal, No. 235PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant to recover the price of a quantity of lumber alleged to have been contracted for by the defendant, the value of which exceeded $500. The statement of claim recites that the lumber was ordered verbally by telephone on October 13, 1920, and that the plaintiff sent the defendant a confirmation of the order in writing in which was set forth a description of the lumber. The defense presented was that the alleged contract was in parol for merchandise exceeding $500 in value and was therefore unenforceable because of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wilson v. . Lewiston Mill Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
  2. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  3. Porter v. PattersonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1908

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Brister & Koester Lumber Corp. v. American Lumber Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  2. Northwestern Consolidated Milling Co. v. AllebachSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. Hill v. Marcus & HoltzmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  4. Sall v. Mueller Brass Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  5. Weinroth v. Mill End Cloth. Co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924

3 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