Legal Opinion

Ross v. McMillan

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 20, 1953No. Appeal, 102PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Reno, J.,

Frank M. Ross, Sr., Elma Ross, Frank M. Ross, Jr., and Richard H. Ross, trading as Ross Lumber Company, sued appellant in ¿ssumpsit and recoveréd a verdict for $1366.53. Appellant’s sole contention is that he is entitled to a new trial becáuse plaintiffs had not registered under the Fictitious Names Act of May 24, 1945, P. L. 967, 54 P.S. §28.1 et seq., before they instituted this action.

The Act requires registration of assumed or fictitious names in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the prothonotary of the county wherein the principal place of business is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lamb v. CondonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  2. Kocher v. KocherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  3. Engle v. Capital Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  4. Rome S. Amp S. Station v. FinchSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. MacY v. OSWALD Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  2. George Stash & Sons v. New Holland Credit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Macy v. OswaldSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  4. Harris v. Sulcus Computer Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
  5. Filbern Manor Apartments v. Board of Assessment AppealsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

19 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