Anhaltzer v. Benedum

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Anhaltzer v. Benedum

109 A. 597, 266 Pa. 113, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 513

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 5, 1920

DocketAppeal, No. 97

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 109 A. 597 (Anhaltzer v. Benedum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anhaltzer v. Benedum, 109 A. 597, 266 Pa. 113, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 513 (Pa. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The action in the court below was for an alleged breach of a written contract. Prior to the institution of it the plaintiff had brought another action on the same contract and recovered. It is admitted that what he now claims, if owing to him, was due at the time he brought the first suit. His recovery in it barred the present action: Jenkins v. Scranton, 205 Pa. 598; Thompson v. Graham, 246 Pa. 202. This was the correct view of the court below, and the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

The action in the court below was for an alleged breach of a written contract. Prior to the institution of it the plaintiff had brought another action on the same contract and recovered. It is admitted that what he now claims, if owing to him, was due at the time he brought the first suit. His recovery in it barred the present action: Jenkins v. Scranton, 205 Pa. 598; Thompson v. Graham, 246 Pa. 202. This was the correct view of the court below, and the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A. 597, 266 Pa. 113, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anhaltzer-v-benedum-pa-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack