Legal Opinion

In re Shapiro

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided June 24, 1924No. 8250PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMPSON, District Judge.

Samuel Shoyer was employed as a salesman for the bankrupts under the following contract:

“Bell, Walnut 5973

Shapiro & Kline, Props.

“Hi-Grade Dress Mfg. Co., 19 North Ninth Street.
“Philadelphia, Pa., August 1, 1922.
“From date above stated to the 15th day of May, 1923, Mr. Shoyer will be salesman for Shapiro & Kline, trading as the Hi-grade Dress Mfg. Co., residing at 19 N. 9th St., Phila., Pa., with terms as follows:
“Mr. Shoyer will receive five (5%) per cent, of all sales, less all returns, credits, or allowances he makes, payable at time merchandise is accepted.
“It is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re DexterCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1907
  2. In re KominersDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1916
  3. In re FinkDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1908

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. J. M. Radford Grocery Co. v. McKeanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
  2. In re CollinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1937
  3. In re Herbert Candy Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1942
  4. Opinion No., Texas Attorney General Reports1978
  5. Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API