Legal Opinion

Piper v. Laughman

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

Decided October 7, 1889No. 87PublishedCited by 18 opinions

No. 87 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No, 427 September Term 1884, C. P. No. 3, in Equity. To the number and term of the court below, William H. Piper and John H. Lewars, trading as W. PI. Piper & Go., filed a bill in equity against Daniel Laughman and J. Chester Wilson, trading as D. Laughman & Co., averring-: That in 1874, W. PI.

Read the full summary

No. 87 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No, 427 September Term 1884, C. P. No. 3, in Equity. To the number and term of the court below, William H. Piper and John H. Lewars, trading as W. PI. Piper & Go., filed a bill in equity against Daniel Laughman and J. Chester Wilson, trading as D. Laughman & Co., averring-: That in 1874, W. PI. Piper, one of the plaintiffs, became associated with James H. Dysart and Daniel Laughman, one of the defendants, under the firm name of Dysart & Co., in carrying on the business of mining and shipping coal upon a tract of land in Cambria county, Pa.,…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion,

Mr. Justice Clark :

The plaintiffs, W. H. Piper & Co., are miners and shippers of bituminous coal in Cambria county. They are engaged in mining what is known on the geological maps of the state as the Miller vein, at Ben’s creek, on the western slope of the Allegheny mountains; their mines are located upon what was sometimes called the Big Survey, containing an area of about ten square miles, or over six thousand acres. This large body of land, it is said, was conveyed by William Penn directly to one Arent Sonman, and hence has been generally known as 'the Sonman survey. From the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Menendez v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Canal Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  3. Kidd v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  4. Newman v. AlvordNew York Supreme Court · 1867
  5. Glendon Iron Co. v. UhlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. United States Ozone Co. v. United States Ozone Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1932
  2. Krebs Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., in 96-3702 v. Valley Motors, Inc., D/B/A Rea Motors Office of the U.S. Trustee Ronald J. Charapp American Auto Sales Inc., T/d/b/a Wilkinsburg Rambler, Inc. Chrysler Corporation General Motors Acceptance Corporation Benke Motors, Inc. Verona Motor Sales, Inc., Stephen I. Goldring. Krebs Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Valley Motors, Inc., D/B/A Rea Motors Office of the U.S. Trustee Ronald J. Charapp American Auto Sales Inc., T/d/b/a Wilkinsburg Rambler, Inc. Chrysler Corporation General Motors Acceptance Corporation Benke Motors, Inc. Verona Motor Sales, Inc., Stephen I. Goldring. Chrysler Corporation, in 96-3757Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
  3. The Children's Bootery v. SutkerSupreme Court of Florida · 1926
  4. Quaker State Oil Refining Co. v. SteinbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  5. Church & Dwight Co. v. RussU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1900

13 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