Patterson v. Glassmire
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 9, July T., 1894, by dgfeijdatijbs, from decree1 of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1.89$, .No'. 465, on bill in equity. Bill for'injunction'to restrain business of hair dressing within certain limits.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 9, July T., 1894, by dgfeijdatijbs, from decree1 of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1.89$, .No'. 465, on bill in equity. Bill for'injunction'to restrain business of hair dressing within certain limits. The material portions of the contract between the parties were as follows: “ Know all men by these presents, that we, 'William Glass-mire and Alice Glassmire, of the city of Philadelphia, trading under the style and firm name of Mr. and Mrs. William Glass-mire, hair dealers, for and in consideration of the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, to be paid as hereinafter…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam,
Each of the first forty-five specifications of error complains of the dismissal of the exception, etc., quoted therein. The first twenty-seven of these exceptions to the learned master's report were filed by William Glassmire, one of the defendants, and the remaining eighteen by the other defendant. The exceptions having been considered and dismissed by' the court, the master’s report was approved and the decree recommended by him was entered. This last act is the subject of complaint in the forty-sixtli specification.
It cannot be doubted that the decree in question is the logical…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Wright v. ScottonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1923
- Scotton v. WrightCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1922
- Erie County Milk Ass'n v. RipleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Peterson v. Johnson Nut Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
- United States Air Conditioning Corp. v. FogelDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1959
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.