Legal Opinion

Baxter v. Wunder

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 22, 1926No. Appeal 248PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

Appellant obtained in the court below a rule to show cause why a capias ad satisfaciendum issued against him should not be set aside and appellant released from custody. Prom an order discharging the rule we have this appeal. The only error assigned is the discharging of the rule. A resume of the history of the case is essential to a proper understanding of the questions involved: In 1918 appellant, William C. Hushmer and A. L. Spinney were equal partners in the operation, under the name of Quaker City Carnival Company, of certain amusement devices. In the summer of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Horbach's Administrators v. ElderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851
  2. McKnight v. Ratcliff & JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
  3. Dungan v. ReadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  4. Shaw v. ReedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845
  5. Romberger v. HenrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Brown v. MooreCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957
  2. Grubb v. Albert Einstein Medical CenterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Higgins v. Shenango Pottery Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
  4. Brown v. MooreCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957
  5. Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Murphy (In Re Selheimer & Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2005

4 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