Legal Opinion

Hoffman Construction Co. v. Erwin

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 16, 1938No. Appeal, 130PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Drew,

Plaintiff, a New Jersey corporation, brought this action of assumpsit to recover for work done in Pennsylvania. Defendant filed a petition, under the Act of March 5,1925, P. L. 23, for a preliminary determination of plaintiff’s right to bring the action. The petition alleged that plaintiff was doing business in Pennsylvania without registering as required by the Act of May 5, 1933, P. L. 364, section 1001. A rule was issued on plaintiff, plaintiff answered, and a hearing was held. It appeared that plaintiff was not registered to engage in business in Pennsylvania,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Delaware River Quarry & Construction Co. v. Bethlehem & Nazareth Passenger Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
  2. Wolff Dryer Co. v. BiglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  3. Pavilion Co. v. HamiltonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
  4. Williams v. GoldenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  5. West Jersey Ice Manufacturing Co. v. ArmourSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Wenzel v. Morris Distributing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  2. American Housing Trust, III v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Fulano, J. v. Fanjul Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
  4. Campbell v. FawberDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2013
  5. Philadelphia Gear Wks. v. Read mach.co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939

13 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