Case ID: pa_461/html/0147-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. ROBERTS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

335 A.2d 347
    Martin COHEN et al. v. SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES CORPORATION, Successor to Sunasco, Incorporated, Appellant, et al. SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES CORPORATION, Successor to Sunasco, Incorporated, Appellant, et al., v. Martin COHEN et al.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued Jan. 17, 1975.
    Decided April 17, 1975.
    Perry S. Bechtle, Richard M. Squire, Harold Green-berg, Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman & Cohen, Philadelphia, for appellant.
    Nathan L. Posner, Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, Donald Brown, Philadelphia, for appellee.
    Before JONES, C. J., and EAGEN, O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed. Appellant to bear costs.

ROBERTS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

ROBERTS, J.

I dissent. In my view, the chancellor’s adjudication was based on a proper construction of the contract as providing for offsets against the purchase price to the extent of the overstatement of the net worth of Hilco in the balance sheet dated December 31, 1964, as demonstrated by the failure of specified assets, upon their liquidation, to realize cash in an agreed amount. I would vacate the decree of the court en banc and reinstate the decree of the chancellor.