Legal Opinion

Tate v. Shober

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided October 22, 1941No. Civil Action No. 1373PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KALODNER, District Judge.

This case is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

In substance, the amended complaint avers:

*479Continental Collieries, Incorporated, one of the plaintiffs, in 1938 entered into five written contracts with five owners or lessees of coal mines for the exclusive agency in the sale of coal produced by these mines (Paragraph 2, Amended Complaint).

Contemporaneously, the plaintiff Continental assigned to the plaintiff Wattles a one-half interest in these agency contracts in consideration of his services in their negotiation (Paragraph 3,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gianni v. Russell Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Speier v. MichelsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. Martin & Monroe v. BerensSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
  4. Union Storage Co. ex rel. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance v. SpeckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  5. Germantown T. Co. v. Emhardt (No. 1)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Estate of StephensCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Tate v. ShoberDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1943
  3. Vohs v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API