Introducing Exa PlacesLearn more
Legal Opinion

Howarth Et Ux. v. Gilman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 5, 1948No. Appeal, 117PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Fine, J.,

John A. Howarth and Jennifer Howarth, trading as Howarth & Company, appellees, brought suit in assumpsit to recover from George H.. Gilman, Martin Gilman and Alexander- Brown, trading as Gilman Manufacturing Company, appellants, the sum of $1,733.13 for services rendered in preparing plans and drawings for a clothes hamper and for engineering advice concerning the manufacture and production of wardrobe cabinets. An affidavit of defense was filed denying a contract with appellees to prepare the plans and drawings and asserting that the advice as to the manufacture and…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  3. Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  4. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Illinois ex rel. Drainage CommissionersSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  5. White's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. McLaughlinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Quintana v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Norristown Ford Co. v. Metropolitan Auto Dealer, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  4. Bauman & Vogel, C.P.A. v. Del VecchioDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1976
  5. Zimmerman v. Commonwealth, State Board of Medical Education & LicensureCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API