Commonwealth v. Central D. & P. Tel. Co.
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County
No. 24 May Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 30 January Term 1891, C. P. On September 25, 1890, the Central District & Printing Telegraph Company filed its appeal from, and a specification of objections to an account settled by the auditor general and state treasurer, charging said company with tax upon its capital stock for the year ending the first Monday of November, 1889, under §4, act of June 7, 1879, P. L. 114, and § 21, act of June 1,1889, P. L. 429. The case was…
Read the full summary
No. 24 May Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 30 January Term 1891, C. P. On September 25, 1890, the Central District & Printing Telegraph Company filed its appeal from, and a specification of objections to an account settled by the auditor general and state treasurer, charging said company with tax upon its capital stock for the year ending the first Monday of November, 1889, under §4, act of June 7, 1879, P. L. 114, and § 21, act of June 1,1889, P. L. 429. The case was tried on November 25,1890, without a jury, on a submission under the act of April 22, 1874, P. L. 109; and on January…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mb. Justice Williams :
This case was tried without a jury, and the facts appear fully in the findings of the learned trial judge. From these we learn that the American Bell Telephone Company is a Massachusetts corporation, owning the patents under which the instruments for transmitting or reproducing sound are made, and controlling absolutely the manufacture and use of them. It does not sell any interest in the patent, or any territory, or even a single instrument made by it; but, by leasing the instruments for a term of years at a rental, it maintains its exclusive ownership and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Patterson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Stephens v. CadySupreme Court of the United States · 1853
- Commonwealth v. Am. Bell Teleph. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
3Cited by3 opinions
- Curry v. Alabama Power Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1942
- United Shoe Machinery Co. v. DeanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Granite City Bank v. TvedtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920