Allen Hall v. Roberts
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Garfield v. ParisSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Whitehouse v. BolsterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1901
- Wall v. Royal Society of Good FellowsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Coffman v. HamptonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Weeks v. CrieSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1900
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. EisemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Commonwealth v. PaceCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Kobillis v. BaranowskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Ewart v. Riffle, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Greene County1927