Legal Opinion

Painter v. Roth

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 6, 1935No. Appeal, 158PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Rhodes, J.,

The plaintiff, Walter L. Painter, brought an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution against Samuel Roth and David J. Bonwit, co-partners doing business as Palace Credit Clothing Company, and William Alberts. The jury found for the plaintiff against all the defendants. The court below granted motion of Samuel Roth and David J. Bonwit, co-partners doing business as Palace Credit Clothing Company, two of the defendants, for judgment n. o. v. The plaintiff appeals, and assigns as error the granting of said defendants’ motion for judgment n. o. v. The assignment…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Altman v. Standard Refrig. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Randall v. Fenton Storage Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  3. Shields v. PattersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Carol A. Rannels, Lynn L. Rannels v. S. E. Nichols, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
  2. Hornin v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
  3. Hubert v. the Alta Life Ins. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. Heisey Et Ux. v. VansantSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API