Dain v. Loeffler

100 A. 888, 256 Pa. 319, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 607
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 15, 1917
DocketAppeal, No. 14
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 100 A. 888 (Dain v. Loeffler) 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
Dain v. Loeffler, 100 A. 888, 256 Pa. 319, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 607 (Pa. 1917).

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

In their contract with the appellee the appellants did not, as they contend, constitute him merely their exclusive agent to sell the stock of the Sanitary Enameling & Specialty Company. An exclusive agency to sell is not the equivalent of an exclusive right to sell, but merely prohibits the appointment of another agency to sell. In this case plaintiff, under the words of his contract, had the exclusive right to sell for and during the term of ninety days, and Turner v. Baker, 225 Pa. 359, is not in conflict with the view entertained by the Superior Court.

Judgment affirmed/

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

Related

Byrne v. Bushkoff
110 A.2d 813 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1955)
Quille v. Wible
64 Pa. D. & C. 427 (Fulton County Court of Common Pleas, 1948)
Albright v. Kalbitzer
62 F. Supp. 815 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 A. 888, 256 Pa. 319, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dain-v-loeffler-pa-1917.