Osborn v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Crawford. Case stated. The defendant was engaged in the manufacture and sale of hats and caps, and also sold articles of domestic ■manufactures to an amount less than $1,000 per annum; which articles were not manufactured by him or at his shop. Whether he was liable to pay for a license to sell such articles to an amount less than $1,000, was the question.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Crawford. Case stated. The defendant was engaged in the manufacture and sale of hats and caps, and also sold articles of domestic ■manufactures to an amount less than $1,000 per annum; which articles were not manufactured by him or at his shop. Whether he was liable to pay for a license to sell such articles to an amount less than $1,000, was the question. If so, then judgment for plaintiff for $7. Church, P. J., gave judgment for plaintiff for $7.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
After a careful examination of the several acts of Assembly, we are satisfied the learned judge is - correct in Ms views. We adopt Ms opinion, and
Affirm the judgment.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Thomas Potter, Sons & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Atlantic Refining Co. v. Van ValkenburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Byran v. City of SparksNevada Supreme Court · 1913