Legal Opinion

Rex v. Paramount Rubber Co. of New Jersey

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 21, 1933No. Appeal 52PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

A rule to quash a writ of foreign attachment is not the proper proceeding to determine whether a bill of sale and transfer of all its property in this State made by the defendant foreign corporation to a Pennsylvania corporation bearing the same name, and with the same officers and management, was in fraud of the former’s creditors: Welmet B. & L. Assn. v. Matchica, 310 Pa. 275, 278, 165 Atl. 227. That question can better be determined on an interpleader issue under the Act of June 22, 1931, P. L. 883, following a claim of property by the Pennsylvania corporation; or on…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Pasquinelli v. Southern Macaroni Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Mindlin v. Saxony Spinning Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  3. David E. Kennedy, Inc. v. SchleindlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Pennsylvania Railroad v. PennockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
  5. Welmet Building & Loan Ass'n v. MatchicaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Falk & Co. v. South Texas Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Bianco v. Concepts" 100", Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  3. Marano v. Granata (Hankin)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  4. Powers v. SlatterySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. Keystone State Corp. v. Union Indemnity Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1941

1 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