Opinion

Kerchner, Marshall & Co. v. Pittsburgh

  • 406 Pa. 158
  • 176 A.2d 645
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 2, 1962
Status
Published
Author
Bell
On the bench
Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, Alpern
Cited by
8 cases
Authority
More cited than 8.7%

The opinion

*163 Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bell:

In my judgment, Paper Products Company v. Pittsburgh, 391 Pa. 87 , 137 A. 2d 253 , directly rules this ease and appellee is subject to the mercantile license tax only as a wholesale vendor. It must not be forgotten that tax statutes must be construed most strongly against the taxing authorities. I would affirm on the opinion of Ralph H. Smith, J., speaking for the lower Court.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.