Commonwealth v. Keystone Laundry Co.
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- HAB Industries, Inc. v. City of Allentown (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994)
- City of Reading v. Forty-Five Noble Street, Inc. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980)
- United Laundries, Inc. v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals & Review (Pa. Super. Ct. 1947)
- Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad v. Custer County (Mont. 1934)
- Pellerin Laundry Mach. Sales Co. v. Cheney (Ark. 1963)
- Assessors of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation (Mass. 1949)
- Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Assessors of Boston (Mass. 1949)
- Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Assessors of Boston (Mass. 1947)
- Commonwealth v. Philadelphia Toilet & Laundry Co. (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas 1939)
- Commonwealth v. Bornot, Inc. (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas 1931)
- State ex rel. Moose v. Frank (Ark. 1914)
- Standard Tailoring Co. v. City of Louisville (Ky. Ct. App. 1913)
- Commonwealth v. Cover (Pa. Super. Ct. 1905)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The appellant was incorporated for the purpose of “ cleansing, bleaching, starching and smoothing textile fabrics by the use of machinery and mechanical appliances, and the application of skilled manual operation.” Its principal business is, as properly stated by the court below, “washing and ironing.” In carrying on this business, it needs soap and dyes, and, even if it does manufacture these two articles for its own use, instead of buying them, such manufacture of them does not make the “washing and ironing” concern a “manufacturing plant and business,” as defined by statute, lexicon or judicial utterance.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.