Legal Opinion

Pennsylvania R. R. v. Harrisburg Taxicab & Baggage Co.

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County

Decided January 31, 1923No. Equity Docket, No. 737PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Fox, J.,

Four questions are raised by the demurrer to the bill of complaint in this case, which are in substance as follows:

1. That the complainant has not complied with Equity Rule No. 16, in that the bill in the introductory part thereof does not name the parties plaintiffs and defendants, respectively.

2. That the complainant has an adequate and complete remedy at law.

3. That the complainant may not lawfully give exclusive privileges to one transfer company.

4. Complainant does not aver in its bill that it will suffer or sustain irreparable damages or any damages whatsoever.

We take these…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
  2. Walters v. McElroySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
  3. Keppel v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
  4. Stewart's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
  5. Lehigh Valley Railroad v. GrahamSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API