Commonwealth ex rel. Wilde v. Pennsylvania Silk Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth ex rel. Wilde v. Pennsylvania Silk Co.

110 A. 158, 267 Pa. 336, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 858

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 19, 1920

DocketNo. 2; Appeal, No. 231

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 110 A. 158 (Commonwealth ex rel. Wilde v. Pennsylvania Silk Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth ex rel. Wilde v. Pennsylvania Silk Co., 110 A. 158, 267 Pa. 336, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 858 (Pa. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The answer of the respondents to the petition for the writ of mandamus denied that Harvey D. P. Dietrich, this appellant, was treasurer of the corporation, or that he had any authority to give to the relator access to its boohs. As the demurrer admitted this to be true, judgment should not have been entered against him. His appeal is, therefore, sustained and the judgment as to him is reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

The answer of the respondents to the petition for the writ of mandamus denied that Harvey D. P. Dietrich, this appellant, was treasurer of the corporation, or that he had any authority to give to the relator access to its boohs. As the demurrer admitted this to be true, judgment should not have been entered against him. His appeal is, therefore, sustained and the judgment as to him is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A. 158, 267 Pa. 336, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-wilde-v-pennsylvania-silk-co-pa-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack