Legal Opinion

SCHULTZ v. Mountain Telephone Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 20, 1950No. Appeal, 8PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Linn,

Dissenting shareholders of The Mountain Telephone Company, who were opposed to the sale of its assets to Conestoga Telephone and Telegraph Company, applied, pursuant to Section 5 of the Act 1 of May 20, 1921, P. L. 949, 15 PS 2415, for the appointment of “three disinterested persons to estimate and appraise the damage, if any, which such . . . stockholders have suffered or sustained by reason of” such sale. Three appraisers were appointed; after hearing and investigation, a majority of them reported (1) that the dissenting shareholders “have suffered or sustained no…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Lauman v. Lebanon Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
  2. Tunison v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  3. Weisbecker v. Hosiery Patents, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  4. Steele v. LinebergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1872
  5. Black's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Smith CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  2. Jones v. Montefiore HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. Braun v. Hassenstein Steel Co.District Court, D. South Dakota · 1959
  4. Scott Township AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  5. Dickinson v. Fire Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API