Anhaltzer v. Benedum

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Anhaltzer v. Benedum

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

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 5, 1920·No. Appeal, No. 97·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

Pincite

109 A. 597 (Anhaltzer v. Benedum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related