Chicago Building & Manufacturing Co. v. Myton
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 99, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Huntingdon Co., Feb. T., 1901, No. 24, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of the Chicago Building and Manufacturing Company v. A. Guy Myton. Assumpsit on a contract of subscription towards the erection of a butter factory. The facts are stated in the opinion of Bailey, P. J., which was as follows: The plaintiff is a corporation, chartered and organized under the laws of the state of Illinois.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 99, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Huntingdon Co., Feb. T., 1901, No. 24, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of the Chicago Building and Manufacturing Company v. A. Guy Myton. Assumpsit on a contract of subscription towards the erection of a butter factory. The facts are stated in the opinion of Bailey, P. J., which was as follows: The plaintiff is a corporation, chartered and organized under the laws of the state of Illinois. It has not filed in the office of the secretary of the commonwealth of this state, a statement, as required by the second…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cxteiam,
All of the assignments of error aré overruled and the judgment is affirmed for the reasons given in the able opinion of the late President Judge Baxley of the’ court below.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Luce v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Federal Glass Co. v. LorentzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912