Legal Opinion

Pruitt v. Goldstein Millinery Co.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided April 25, 1916PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (Common Pleas No. 4).

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Thomas.

Affirming.

The appellee (defendant below) is a partnership composed of Barney Goldstein and Leo Goldstein as members, ¿nd the partnership is engaged in the millinery business in the city of Louisville under the firm name of Goldstein Millinery Co. The appellant (plaintiff below) was employed by and working in the store of the defendant as sales lady. The two members of the partnership are nonresidents of that city, residing in Chicago, Ill., and the general management and conduct of the store was in charge of a brother of the two partners, one Edward A..…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. International & Great Northern Railway Co. v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1889
  2. Duquesne Distributing Co. v. GreenbaumCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
  3. Vincent v. RatherTexas Supreme Court · 1868
  4. Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. HeuchtkerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
  5. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. KutemanTexas Supreme Court · 1890

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Tauscher v. Doernbecher Manufacturing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Young v. North East Coal Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922
  3. J. J. Newberry Co. v. FaulconerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1933
  4. National Life Ins. Co. of United States v. AbernathySupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
  5. Edwards v. Kentucky Utilities Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1942

1 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