Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Miller

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 2, 1940No. Appeal, 396PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Drew,

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the appellant, a licensed optometrist, is a retail dealer within the meaning of the Mercantile License Tax Act of May 2, 1899, P. L. 184, as amended, to the extent that he' sells glasses which he purchases from optical laboratories. Upon competent evidence, the learned court below found that appellant purchases the glasses he prescribes for his patients from manufacturing opticians, that he adds their cost in his bill for professional services, and that his total charge includes a profit on the glasses thus…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Neill v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  2. Commonwealth v. LutzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  3. Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania Heat & Power Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. Commonwealth v. DinnienSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Sterling v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  2. Gunter v. CascioAppellate Court of Illinois · 1948
  3. Mitchell v. Furman Beauty Supply, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1961
  4. Auman, Inc. v. City of Reading, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County1949
  5. Commonwealth v. StemetPhiladelphia County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1959

2 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