Eisenlohr v. Swain

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Eisenlohr v. Swain

35 Pa. 107

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 1, 1860

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 Pa. 107 (Eisenlohr v. Swain) 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

Eisenlohr v. Swain, 35 Pa. 107 (Pa. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Per, Curiam,

"What was said by the judge at Nisi Prius, was a sufficient answer to the plaintiff’s demand for speculative damages in this case. The defendants having failed, through mistake or accident, and without fraud, to publish the plaintiff’s notice according to contract, he was entitled to recover back the advertising fee he had paid, and that the yerdict gave him.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per, Curiam,

"What was said by the judge at Nisi Prius, was a sufficient answer to the plaintiff’s demand for speculative damages in this case. The defendants having failed, through mistake or accident, and without fraud, to publish the plaintiff’s notice according to contract, he was entitled to recover back the advertising fee he had paid, and that the yerdict gave him.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Pa. 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisenlohr-v-swain-pa-1860.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack