Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Keystone Laundry Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 4, 1902No. Appeal, No. 31PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Appeal, No. 31, May T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., Commonwealth Docket, 1900, No. 173, on appeal from tax settlement in case of Commonwealth v. Keystone Laundry Company. Appeal from tax settlement.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 31, May T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., Commonwealth Docket, 1900, No. 173, on appeal from tax settlement in case of Commonwealth v. Keystone Laundry Company. Appeal from tax settlement. The case was tried without a jury under the act of April 22, 1874. Weiss, J., found the facts to be as follows; 1. The defendant company is a domestic corporation organized “ for the purpose of cleansing, bleaching, starching and smoothing textile fabrics by the use of machinery or mechanical» appliances and the application of skilled manual operation.” 2, It reported…

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The appellant was incorporated for the purpose of “ cleansing, bleaching, starching and smoothing textile fabrics by the use of machinery and mechanical appliances, and the application of skilled manual operation.” Its principal business is, as properly stated by the court below, “washing and ironing.” In carrying on this business, it needs soap and dyes, and, even if it does manufacture these two articles for its own use, instead of buying them, such manufacture of them does not make the “washing and ironing” concern a “manufacturing plant and business,” as defined by statute,…

2Cited by13 opinions

  1. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Assessors of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
  2. Assessors of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations & TaxationMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
  3. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Assessors of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
  4. Pellerin Laundry Mach. Sales Co. v. CheneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1963
  5. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad v. Custer CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1934

8 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