Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DAYSTROM v. BATT. (11/18/57)

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


November 18, 1957

DAYSTROM, INCORPORATED, APPELLANT,
v.
BATT.

Appeal, No. 4, May T., 1958, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, 1956, No. 248 Commonwealth Docket, in case of Daystrom, Incorporated, v. William L. Batt, Jr., Secretary of Labor and Industry, et al. Judgment affirmed.

COUNSEL

William H. Wood, with him Leon D. Metzger and Hull, Leiby and Metzger, for appellant.

Morley W. Baker, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellees.

Before Jones, C. J., Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno, Arnold and Jones, JJ.

[ 390 Pa. Page 587]

OPINION PER CURIAM

The judgment of the court below sustaining defendants' preliminary objections is affirmed on the opinion of Judge RICHARDS: 10 Pa. D. & C. 2d 39.

ING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO:

The plaintiff in this case, Daystrom, Incorporated, made an overpayment to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

[ 390 Pa. Page 588]

    in the amount of approximately $166,500. I see no reason why it should not be paid back.

There is no business place in the world which honors itself by living up to the Golden Rule, by respecting the fundamental rules of good business practices, and by observing fair business methods, that would not gladly make refund of what it collected through error and to which it is clearly not entitled.

Why sould the Golden Rule shine any less brightly in the business house of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?

19571118

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.