Legal Opinion

Pennsylvania Utilities Co. v. Mt. Bethel Milling Co.

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County

Decided October 3, 1921No. 70Published

Certiorari to judgment of alderman. C. P. Northampton Co., Sept. T., 1921, No. 70.

1Opinion of the Court

STEWART, P. J.,

This is a certiorari to the judgment of an alderman. Judgment was entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence under the provisions of the Act of July 7,1879, P. L. 194. It has always been held upon certiorari that the provisions of the Act of 1879 must be strictly complied with. In Murdy v. McCutcheon et ux., 95 Pa. 435, the Supreme Court took jurisdiction of the case under the act, although in Huntington and Broad Top Mountain R. R. Co. v. Fluke, 32 Pa. Superior Ct. 126, President Judge Rice of the Superior Court showed that the Supreme Court had evidently overlooked…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Newbold v. PennockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  2. Murdy v. McCutcheonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
  3. Andrews v. Blue Ridge Packing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  4. Bethlehem Steel Co. v. ToplissSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  5. Huntington & Broad Top Mountain Railroad v. FlukeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API