Commonwealth ex rel. Graham v. DeCamp
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 137, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 12, overruling demurrer in quo warranto proceedings. Quo warranto to determine defendant’s right to the office of councilman in the city of Philadelphia. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was in entering judgment of ouster.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Sterrett,
This appeal is from the judgment of ouster entered against the defendant upon facts set forth in the suggestion of the *114commonwealth and admitted by the defendant’s demurrer and refusal to answer.
In December, 1894, the Brush Electric Light Company, of which corporation the defendant then was and continued to be a stockholder, entered into á contract with the city of Philadelphia to furnish the municipality with electric light during the year 1895. That contract was evidenced by a written agreement, afterwards executed on behalf of the Electric Light Co., by…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. ClaflinSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Commonwealth v. Allen, Huhn & ShaneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1872
- Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. FrickeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Frederick StreetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Commonwealth v. Wilkes-Barre & Scranton Ry.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Provident Life & Trust Co. v. KlemmerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Baily v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- McCampbell v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1905
- Commonwealth v. WitmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Commonwealth v. BennettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.