Legal Opinion

Heymann v. Electric Service Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 11, 1963No. Appeal, No. 93PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mb. Justice Benjamin R. Jones,

This assumpsit action was instituted in tbe Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County by Heymann and Brother (Heymann), real estate brokers, and Production Sales, Inc. (Production Sales), business brokers, for tbe recovery of a brokers’ commission allegedly due from Electric Service Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Seller), on tbe ground that tbe actions of Heymann and Production Sales constituted tbe efficient cause of tbe production of H. K. Porter Company (Porter) as tbe purchaser of all the capital stock of tbe Seller. After a trial, tbe jury…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Littman v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Parker v. Yellow Cab Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  3. Connors v. DempseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  4. Shipp v. SchmittSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  5. Kahn v. LevySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Behrend v. Bell Telephone Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Edwin L. Wiegand DivisionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. Irving B. Gruber v. Owens-Illinois Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
  4. Commonwealth v. HawkinsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Mattia v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

18 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