Legal Opinion

Connor v. Hawk

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 17, 1957No. Appeal, 238PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Arnold,

Plaintiffs appeal from the order of the court below refusing their motion for removal of compulsory monsuit in this action of trespass for damages sustained in the destruction of their drugstore building and contents by fire.. Viewing the testimony, as we must in such cases, in. a light most favorable to plaintiffs, the following appears: By contract with plaintiffs Philadelphia Wholesale Drug Company, defendant, decorated plaintiffs’ store windows at fixed intervals. On the day in question, their employe, Hawk, individual defendant, *482proceeded to decorate one of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dannals v. Sylvania TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  2. Commonwealth v. RogozinskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  3. Satovich v. LeeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  4. Propert v. FlanaganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  5. Sharble v. Kuehnle-Wilson, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Smith v. Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  2. Flagiello v. CrillySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. Lear v. Shirk's Motor Express Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  4. Lanza v. PorettiDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Rutovitsky v. MaglioccoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959

11 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