Commonwealth v. Budd Wheel Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Simpson,
These two cases raise but one question, viz.: Did the court below err in valuing defendant’s no-par capital stock at $100 per share, when determining the amount of bonus which should be paid on the various increases thereof? Defendant being a domestic corporation, this question is to be answered by considering only the statutes of the State; it is not affected by any provision of the Constitution of the United States, or the Acts of Congress passed in pursuance thereof: Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Emmerson, 271 U. S. 50.
Section 1 of our Act of May 3, 1899, P. L.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sugar Notch BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. EmmersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Smith v. Yellow Cab Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Reeves v. Philadelphia Suburban Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Commonwealth v. Wayne Sewerage Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Montgomery County Bar Ass'n v. RinalducciSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Amalgamated Transit Union, Division 85 v. Port AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Commonwealth v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Camden Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. EavensonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.