Smith v. Kingston Borough
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY. No. 93 January Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 308 October Term 1885, C. P. On July 8, 1885, a scire facias sur municipal claim, No. 6 Docket III., wherein the borough of Kingston was plaintiff and L. A. Smith and Mary H., his wife, in right of said wife, were defendants. The defendants pleaded, nunquam indebitatus.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY. No. 93 January Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 308 October Term 1885, C. P. On July 8, 1885, a scire facias sur municipal claim, No. 6 Docket III., wherein the borough of Kingston was plaintiff and L. A. Smith and Mary H., his wife, in right of said wife, were defendants. The defendants pleaded, nunquam indebitatus. On June 5, 1886, by agreement of parties the cause was referred to Mr. Thomas H. Atherton, under the act of March 23, 1870, P. L. 540, extending to Wayne and Luzerne the provisions of the act of April 6, 1869, P. L. 725,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam :
The report of the learned referee so thoroughly and well disposes of the facts and law of this case, that nothing is left for us to do but adopt his opinion and affirm the judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.
2Cited by11 opinions
- City of Pittsburg ex rel. Flanagan v. DalySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Canton Borough v. WilliamsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Commonwealth v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Black v. RoebuckSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- City of Chester v. First National BankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.