Legal Opinion

Smith v. Electric MacHinery Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 17, 1924No. Appeal, 311PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

Howard R. Smith was employed by the Electric Machinery Company, the defendant, and as their agent sold to A. F. Bornot Bros. Company certain machinery. The Electric Machinery Company was placed in the hands of a receiver by the District Court of the United States in Minnesota and Smith being a creditor of the company for services rendered issued a foreign attachment, attaching the balance due from the Bornot Company to the Electric Machinery Company. After proper pleadings the matter came to trial. The garnishee, the Bornot Company, offered in evidence a certified copy…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hancock National Bank v. FarnumSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. Frowert v. BlankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  3. Solis v. BlankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Mitchell, Receiver of the Liberty Clay Products Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Nazareth Cement Co. v. Union Indemnity Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  3. Com. Ex Rel. v. Consolidated Indem. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  4. Arroyo v. Chesapeake InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  5. Carpenter v. LudlumCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1934

2 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