Legal Opinion

Hartman Co. v. Hyman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 21, 1925No. Appeal 220PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Gawthrop, J.,

This is an action for slander. The facts as disclosed by the record are briefly as follows: Defendants and other wholesale produce dealers are members of the Philadelphia Produce, Credit and Collection Bureau. The by-laws of the bureau provide that all bills for goods sold to any purchaser shall be due and payable on the Saturday after the sale shall have been made and that if a bill is not paid by the purchaser on or, before noon of the succeeding Wednesday, the creditor, who is a member of the bureau, shall report that fact to the bureau. A member who fails to make…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Briggs v. GarrettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
  2. Conroy v. Pittsburgh TimesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
  3. Neeb v. HopeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
  4. Price v. ConwaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
  5. Wood v. BoyleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hartman v. Hyman & LiebermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  2. Altoona Clay Products, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966
  3. Diamond v. KrasnowSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. Rannels v. S. E. Nichols, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Altoona Clay Products, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. C. R. Grove, Joined as by Court Order. Altoona Clay Products, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. C. R. Grove, Joined as by Court OrderCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API