Legal Opinion

Robinson v. Goldberg

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 21, 1938No. Appeal, 141PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Linn,

“The case turns,” as the learned chancellor said, “upon a single issue of fact, namely, whether the partnership was composed of all three parties to the bill, or only of the two defendants.” It was a joint venture in a single transaction—tbe purchase of a going business with the object of selling it at a profit. He found that the plaintiff and both defendants were equally interested and decreed accordingly. One of defendants, Goldberg, appeals. In opposing the position taken by Goldberg on the evidence, the plaintiff-appellee points to the findings of fact, affirmed…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Belmont Laboratories, Inc. v. HeistSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  2. Comstock v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  3. Frazier v. MansfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  4. Dempster v. BaxmyerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  5. Valley Smokeless Coal Co. v. Manufacturers' Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Holst v. ButlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  2. Goldberg v. GoldbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  3. Vercesi v. PetriSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. McLaughlin v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Dales v. MuirSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944

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