Stroudsburg Borough v. Shick
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 38, Jan. ,T., 1904, by-defendant, from order of C. P. Monroe Co., Feb. T., 1902, No. 18, making absolute rule for judgment for want-of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Stroudsburg Borough v. J. Milton Shick. Assumpsit to recover moneys paid to defendant as liquor license fees. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
The right of boroughs and cities to their respective proportions of the money received for retail liquor licenses, under the act of June 9, 1891, without abatement for commissions to. *444the county treasurer, has been settled by the decisions of this court in Kittanning v. Mast, 15 Pa. Superior Ct. 51, and Allentown v. Hartman, 22 Pa. Superior Ct. 400. No further discussion of this question is necessary.
In this case, there was nothing in the action of the county commissioners and auditors, fixing the treasurer’s compensation, that gave Mm a right to the commissions here…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Allegheny County Home's CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
- State Line & Juniata Railroad Company's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- In re Borough of PottstownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Gas & Water Co. v. Borough of DowningtownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Kittanning Borough v. MastSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Snyder County v. WagensellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Commonwealth v. MeadsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Roads v. DietzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Commonwealth v. SmithgallLancaster County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1942
- Snyder County v. WagensellerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917