Legal Opinion

Stoner v. Higginson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 4, 1934No. Appeal, 191PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Maxey,

This is an appeal from the order of tbe court below refusing to set aside the service of a summons in an action of trespass against sixteen defendants, none of whom were Pennsylvania residents, comprising the partnership of Lee, Higginson & Co. This firm maintained offices in New York, Boston and Chicago, and branch offices in other cities including Pittsburgh, where its office was, from July 1, 1930, in charge of a manager named Gilliland. The firm was registered under the Fictitious Names Act of June 28,1917, P. L. 645, 54 P. S., section 21, the names and…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Paul v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  3. Hess v. PawloskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  4. Holden v. HardySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  5. International Harvester Co. of America v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1914

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Shamblin v. BeasleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
  2. Vaughn v. LoveSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Wax v. Van MarterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Long v. Sakleson (A. U., Inc.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. Spica v. International Ladies Garment Workers' UnionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957

14 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