Legal Opinion

Williams v. ROSE

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 22, 1961No. Appeal, 71PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Bok,

This is an appeal by the Dyson Corporation, defendant, from an order of the court below dismissing its preliminary objections to jurisdiction.

The merits of the case are not before us, but to give it a shape they concern the purchase of The Hubbard Company stock for $4,543,000 from two sisters, one now incompetent. The book value of this company’s current assets, as alleged in the complaint, was about $8,500,000 and the market value of the stock “greatly in excess of $7,000,000”. Fraud and deception are alleged. In addition to the complaint,' answer, and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Gardner v. Allegheny CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  2. Shambe v. Delaware Hudson R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  3. Robinson v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  4. New v. Robinson-Houchin Optical Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  5. Edirose Silk Manufacturing Co. v. First National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Bata v. Central-Penn Nat. Bank of Phila.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Botwinick v. Credit Exchange, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. In Re Puerto Rico Air Disaster LitigationDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1972
  4. United Steelworkers of America v. Copperweld Steel Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1964
  5. Dwyer v. RothmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981

7 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