Legal Opinion

Allen Hall v. Roberts

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 2, 1925No. Appeal, 17PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

There was evidence produced on the trial of the action from which a jury — or in this case the referee — might find that the order for a carload of cantaloupes, a carload of potatoes and a carload of peaches constituted one contract: Weeks v. Crie, 95 Me. 458, 48 Atl. 107; Garfield v. Paris, 96 U. S. 557; Mills v. Hunt, 20 Wendell (N. Y.) 431; Jenness v. Wendel, 51 N. H. 63; Coffman v. Hampton,.2 W. & S. 377; and the referee having so found, it follows that the delivery to and acceptance by the defendant of the carload of cantaloupes and his payment therefor constituted…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Garfield v. ParisSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Whitehouse v. BolsterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1901
  3. Wall v. Royal Society of Good FellowsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
  4. Coffman v. HamptonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
  5. Weeks v. CrieSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1900

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. EisemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Commonwealth v. PaceCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Kobillis v. BaranowskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  4. Ewart v. Riffle, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Greene County1927

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

Powered by the Exa API