Legal Opinion

Mathey v. Flory Milling Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 13, 1925No. Appeal, 11PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Moschzisker,

In July or August, 1918, J. W. Mathey, the legal plaintiff, hereafter referred to as “plaintiff,” entered the employ of the Flory Milling Company, defendant and appellant, to look after its business interests in Scranton, Pa., as local manager and sales agent, agreeing to devote his entire time to the fulfillment of these duties. The contract of employment was not reduced to writing, and the parties thereto gave different versions of its terms, particularly concerning the compensation to he paid plaintiff; hut the issues thus arising, and others…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Young v. HippleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Dunmore v. PaddenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  3. Commonwealth v. PayneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  4. Miller v. Director General of RailroadsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  5. Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Morningstar v. North East Pennsylvania R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Burke v. KennedySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  3. Lawrence v. GodfreySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  4. Riley v. WoodenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  5. Halpern v. Western Pennsylvania Chemical Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956

5 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