Wentzel v. Barbin
This text of 42 A. 44 (Wentzel v. Barbin) 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.
Opinion
When the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff “ all his right, title and good-will to the Oakland paper route, until now, controlled by the said R. M. Barbin,” he became bound in honor and in law to carry out his contract in good faith. He was certainly not at liberty, especially after receiving a large part of the purchase money, to filch away from the plaintiff the veritable substance of that which he had sold. It was not like the setting up of another business of the same kind, but it was the taking away of the very thing he had sold that was complained of by the plaintiff. There was no error in the admission of the proposed testimony nor in the ruling of the court in the general charge nor in the answers to points.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
42 A. 44, 189 Pa. 502, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wentzel-v-barbin-pa-1899.