Newhall v. Victor Box Mfg. Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 183, Jan. T., 1921, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Bucks Co., April T., 1919, No. 32, for defendant on statutory demurrer, in case of David Newhall v. Yictor Box Mfg. Co. Assumpsit for commissions on sales of goods. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Ryan, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. The court entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was judgment, quoting it.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Sadler,
David Newhall was vice-president of the Victor Box Manufacturing Company, and on February 1, 1916, entered into a contract to act as its general sales agent for certain of its products. An agreement was executed by which the plaintiff was to receive “three per cent of the gross receipts of the company from all goods sold by it.’1’ Under this contract, certain orders were furnished to the company and, when the goods were accepted and settled for by the vendees, the commission was paid. The plaintiff demanded compensation based on the amount of “gross sales,” as…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Creveling v. Wood & LemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Aikins v. Thackara Mfg. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Lindsay v. Carbon Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Bedilion v. Muehler Bros.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
3Cited by6 opinions
- Warren M. Wilson v. Homestead Valve Manufacturing Company. Appeal of Warren M. Wilson. Appeal of Homestead Valve Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
- Stockton Commission Co. v. Narragansett Cotton Mills, Inc.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1926
- Levan v. Royal Paper Products, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Levan v. Royal Paper Products, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Levan v. Royal Paper Products, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.