Kernchen Co. v. English

70 Pa. Super. 293, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 234
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 12, 1918
DocketAppeal, No. 71
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 Pa. Super. 293 (Kernchen Co. v. English) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kernchen Co. v. English, 70 Pa. Super. 293, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 234 (Pa. Ct. App. 1918).

Opinion

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

The plaintiff is a corporation of the State of Illinois, and the owner of a patent covering a certain kind of ventilator. This action is brought to recover the price of three of said ventilators averred to have been sold by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defendants are manufacturers having a factory in the City of Philadelphia, and for several years had, in that city, been making the ventilators for the plaintiff and shipping them to such places, in Pennsylvania and other states, as were designated by the plaintiff. It is very clear that, although the owner of the patent was an Illinois corporation, the manufacture of the ventilators in the State of Pennsylvania and the sale thereof within this State did not involve interstate commerce. The plaintiff paid to the defendants a price agreed upon for manufacturing the ventilators and then sold them to parties in the State of Pennsylvania and elsewhere at such prices as it saw fit. The three ventilators involved in this particular transaction were manufactured in Philadelphia and were there sold to these defendants. The plaintiff, being [299]*299a foreign corporation, bad not complied with tbe statutes requiring it to register in order to entitle it to do business in tbis State. Tbe opinion of Judge Davis, of tbe court below, in entering judgment in favor of tbe defendants non obstante veredicto, fully vindicates bis conclusion that tbe plaintiff was not entitled to recover and renders further discussion unnecessary.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.

Henderson and Head, JJ., dissent.

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

Related

Thys v. State
199 P.2d 68 (Washington Supreme Court, 1948)
J. B. Colt Co. v. Shirk
3 Pa. D. & C. 665 (Union County Court of Common Pleas, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 Pa. Super. 293, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kernchen-co-v-english-pasuperct-1918.