Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. Sanderson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county: Of January Term 1885, No. 475. This was a ease stated, wherein the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company and the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company were plaintiffs, and George Sanderson et al. were defendants.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county: Of January Term 1885, No. 475. This was a ease stated, wherein the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company and the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company were plaintiffs, and George Sanderson et al. were defendants. It was brought to recover the sum of. $169.74, being the amount paid by plaintiffs under protest for county, city, and school taxes on certain coal lands in Lackawanna county, of which plaintiffs were the occupants under an instrument of writing denominated a lease executed by defendants. The instrument set forth that…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Trunkey
These plaintiffs were not parties in the case of Sanderson v. City of Scranton, 9 Out., 469, and therefore are not bound by the adjudication. The sole question in that case is the controlling one in this, namely, whether the deed dated May 10th, 1875, by Sanderson and others to Jermyn, “is a lease, properly so called, or virtually a sale of the minerals in place.” Notwithstanding the very able and ingenious argument of the plaintiffs’ counsel we are not convinced that there was error in the interpretation of the deed. Nothing can be added to the opinion of Justice Clark in support of the…
2Cited by36 opinions
- Lillibridge v. Lackawanna Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- State v. Royal Mineral Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Shenandoah Borough v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Schuster v. Pennsylvania Turnpike CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Williams v. South Penn Oil Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1902
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.