Legal Opinion

Bowman v. Gum, Incorporated

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 23, 1936No. Appeal, 243PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Linn,

Defendants appeal from an order appointing a temporary receiver for a solvent business corporation, Gum, Incorporated. The appointment was made after preliminary hearing on a bill, 1 filed by a shareholder owning one-half the capital stock, alleging a conspiracy on the part of defendants 2 to conduct the affairs of the corporation in their own, instead of the corporate, interest.

The plaintiff, J. Warren Bowman, on and prior to December, 1930, trading as By-Gum Company, was engaged in the manufacture and sale of chewing gum. The insoluble chewing gum base, or…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Taylor v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. McDougall v. Huntingdon & Broad Top R. & C. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  3. Fogelsville & Trexlertown Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  4. Republican Mountain Silver Mines, Ltd. v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1893
  5. Cunliffe v. Consumers Ass'n of AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Colteryahn Sanitary Dairy v. Milk Control CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  2. Houston v. Texaco, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Bartron v. Northampton CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  4. Tate v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Bowman v. Gum, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

33 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