Potter v. Osgood
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Keller, J.,
The plaintiff, since 1909, has been engaged in business in the City of Pittsburgh under the name of “Pittsburgh Distributing Company.” His business is the receiving of merchandise in bulk or car load lots from various manufacturers and producers over the country and distributing it in smaller quantities to buyers and consignees. The learned Chancellor found as a fact that he had built up a business of some value in this line and was known to his customers solely or principally by his trade name as above.
In 1918 the defendant, who had been engaged in the wholesale liquor…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Chas. S. Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. Holmes, Booth & Atwood Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1870
- American Clay Manufacturing Co. v. American Clay Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Royal Baking Powder Co. v. RoyalCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1903
- Engle v. Capital Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Lamb v. CondonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Hartman v. CohnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Consolidated Home Specialties Co. v. PlotkinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Shrout v. TinesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1953
- Acme Chemical Co. v. DobkinDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1946
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.