Legal Opinion

Gottesman v. Lee Lash Co.

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County

Decided October 12, 1925No. 341Published

1Opinion of the Court

Berger, J.,

This is a rule to show cause why a judgment obtained against the defendant, in default of an appearance and for want of an affidavit of defence, should not be opened. The Lee Lash Company, the *345defendant, being engaged in tbe business of theatrical advertising, entered into a written contract with Alfred Gottesman, the plaintiff, by which he was to insert and carry advertisements, to be supplied by the defendant, on the drop-curtain of the Strand Theatre, owned or operated by him in the Borough of Shenandoah, Pa., in consideration of certain payments to be made by the defendant.

Suit…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Noll v. Corporation of Royal Exchange AssuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. Barclay v. Edlis Barber Supply Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  3. Kraus v. American Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. Wanamaker v. QuinnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905

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

Powered by the Exa API