Commonwealth v. Keystone Bridge Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 18, May T., 1893, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., Jan. T., 1893, No. 292, for defendant, on appeal from tax settlement. Appeal from tax settlement.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 18, May T., 1893, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., Jan. T., 1893, No. 292, for defendant, on appeal from tax settlement. Appeal from tax settlement. The opinion of the court below was as follows, by McPherson, J. : “ This case was tried without a jury under the provisions of the act of 1874. We find the facts to be as follows: “ 1. The defendant was originally incorporated under the act of 1863, P. L. of 1864, p. 1102, relating to corporations, for mechanical, manufacturing, mining and quarrying purposes, but its present charter is to be found in the special act…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The main question in this case is whether, according to the true intent and meaning of the revenue act of 1889, the defendant company is a corporation “organized exclusively for manufacturing purposes,” etc.
The facts found by the learned judge before whom the case was tried without a jury are stated in five paragraphs, the third of which is as follows:
“ 3. During the year, the defendant was exclusively engaged in making and selling iron and steel bridges, building roofs, viaducts, turntables and other articles and machinery composed wholly or in part of wood, iron, steel or other…
2Cited by11 opinions
- First National Bank v. William R. Trigg Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1907
- Morrison-Kudson Co. v. State Board of EqualizationWyoming Supreme Court · 1943
- Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Assessors of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- Columbia Ironworks v. National Lead Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1904
- Commonwealth v. Filbert Paving & Construction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.