Case ID: pa-super_80/html/0140-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

D’Olier and Company, Appellants, v. Plankenhorn.
    
      Appeals — Superior Court — Divided court.
    
    Where the six judges of the appellate court, who heard the argument of the case are equally divided in opinion, the specifications of error will be dismissed.
    Argued November 13, 1922.
    Appeal, No. 278, Oct. T., 1922, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Lycoming County, Sept. T., 1920, No. 165, in favor of defendant in case tried by the court without a jury in suit of Franklin D’Olier, Burton Etherington, Winthrop Mincher, S. M. D. Clapper, James D’Olier and Thomas P. Walker, trading as Franklin D’Olier & Company, v. F. E. Plankenhorn.
    December 14, 1922:
    Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before Whitehead, P.- J., without a jury.
    From the record it appeared that the plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of contract for refusal to accept certain merchandise which the plaintiff alleged the defendants had agreed to purchase. The case was tried by the court without a jury and judgment given in favor of the defendant. Plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Joseph E. Taulane and A. R. Jackson, for appellant.
    
      N. M. Edwards, for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

The six judges who heard the argument of this case being equally divided in opinion the specifications of error are dismissed.

The judgment is affirmed.