Legal Opinion

Hertz v. Record Publishing Co.

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County

Decided September 24, 1947Published

1Opinion of the Court

Laub, J.,

An ostensible conflict between several provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure has given rise to the presently considered problem. The action is in mandamus and plaintiff, a *592stockholder in the Record Publishing Company, is seeking court aid to compel inspection of the company’s books.

Preliminary objections to the complaint were filed and disposed of. Defendants then filed an answer in which plaintiff’s status as a stockholder was questioned and his motives for bringing the action impugned. Specifically, defendants in their answer aver that plaintiff is not the actual and true…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State of Washington v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
  2. Lowman v. Harvey R. Pierce Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. American Ins. Co. v. Bradley Mining Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1944
  4. Jennings v. Supreme Photoplay Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API