Legal Opinion

Huron L. Co., Ltd. v. Sklar

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 12, 1931No. Appeal 140PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Drew, J.,

Plaintiff, a Canadian corporation, instituted an action of replevin in the court below for the recovery of a certain shipment of leather of the alleged value of $1,000. A bond in the amount of $2,000 was filed, as required by Section 1 of the Replevin Act of April 19, 1901, P. L. 88, signed by plaintiff corporation by Lester Bowman, its attorney, who signed as attorney-in-fact, and by a surety company. The commonly accepted abbreviation of a seal — “(L. S.)” — appeared following the signature of plaintiff corporation, but the corporate seal of plaintiff was not attached.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hamborsky v. Magyar Presbyterian ChurchSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Moritz's Contested ElectionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
  3. Page v. Williamsport Suspender Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  4. Steinman v. FeldserSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Collins v. Tracy Grill & Bar Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. Susquehanna County Auditors' ReportSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Com., for Use v. PerrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. Eastman Kodak Co. v. OseniderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. York Ice MacHinery Corp. v. RobbinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

4 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