Ross v. McMillan
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Lamb v. CondonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Kocher v. KocherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Engle v. Capital Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Rome S. Amp S. Station v. FinchSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
3Cited by24 opinions
- MacY v. OSWALD Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- George Stash & Sons v. New Holland Credit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Macy v. OswaldSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Harris v. Sulcus Computer Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
- Filbern Manor Apartments v. Board of Assessment AppealsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.