Legal Opinion

Smith v. Frederick Investment Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 14, 1943No. Appeal, 111PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Stadteeld, J.,

The decedent, Clarence J. 'Smith, was a piano tuner by occupation. For many years he was employed by the defendant company to go out and tune pianos on their order. He worked on the defendant’s orders every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at $4 per day; and on Saturdays he generally tuned pianos at the William Penn Hotel in the City of Pittsburgh at $2 for each piano tuned, with a minimum of $4. The hotel paid for this by remittance to the defendant company, and they in turn paid the decedent $2 for every piano tuned. The decedent had private work of his own, unconnected…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Shoffler v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Paulin v. Williams Co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Baumann v. Howard J. Ehmke Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Hunter v. American Steel & Wire Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  5. Knowles v. Parker Wylie Carpet Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bullock v. Building Maintenance, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  2. Newman v. Congregation of Mercy & TruthSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  3. Spry v. PoltSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  4. Goodman v. University Shop, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  5. Muir v. Wilson Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1961

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