Srolowitz v. Roseman
107 A. 322, 263 Pa. 588, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 484
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 17, 1919·No. Appeal, No. 116·Published·Cited by 11 cases
Opinion
We have’ not been persuaded that the material facts found by the learned chancellor below ought to be disturbed. They were followed by correct legal conclusions, and the decree is affirmed at appellant’s costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Srolowitz v. Roseman, 107 A. 322, 263 Pa. 588, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 484 (Pa. 1919).
107 A. 322 (Srolowitz v. Roseman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In Re Verdi
244 B.R. 314 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2000)
John G. Bryant Co. v. Sling Testing & Repair, Inc.
369 A.2d 1164 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1977)
F. G. Okie, Inc. v. Attaway
31 Pa. D. & C.2d 173 (Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, 1962)
Camenisch v. Allen
44 A.2d 309 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1945)
Standard Dairies, Inc. v. McMonagle
35 Pa. D. & C. 256 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1939)
Bradley v. Rhodes
188 A. 564 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Lickert v. Kemp
26 Pa. D. & C. 249 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 1936)
Matthews v. Barnes
293 S.W. 993 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1927)
Jennings v. Shepherd Laundries Co.
276 S.W. 726 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Jennings v. Shepherd Laundries
276 S.W. 726 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Parisian Live Dyers & Cleaners v. Springfield
275 S.W. 1098 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)