History
  • No items yet
midpage
Brandenburg v. Coxe
228 Pa. 212
Pa.
1910
Check Treatment
Per Curiam,

We concur in the view expressed in the opinion of Judge Endlich, on which we affirm the judgment appealed from, that there was not an adoption by the receiver of the contract between the plaintiffs and the Keystone Wagon Works, as a continuing contract, but merely the use by him of orders received by the corporation before his appointment. The plaintiffs’ claim for orders procured for and accepted by the corporation was complete at the time of the appointment of the receiver and for it they have the same remedies as other creditors.

The judgment is affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Brandenburg v. Coxe
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: May 9, 1910
Citation: 228 Pa. 212
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 392
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.