Commonwealth v. Passmore
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THE defendant had been indicted for a nuisance, and at the trial a verdict of guilty was taken, subject to the opinion of the court in bank, upon the following question: Whether an auctioneer has a legal right to deposit goods to be exposed to sale at public auction, in the public street, .on the footway and cartway, opposite to his own store, and the adjoining houses ; there to remain during the sale, and for a reasonable time before and afterwards.
Read the full summary
THE defendant had been indicted for a nuisance, and at the trial a verdict of guilty was taken, subject to the opinion of the court in bank, upon the following question: Whether an auctioneer has a legal right to deposit goods to be exposed to sale at public auction, in the public street, .on the footway and cartway, opposite to his own store, and the adjoining houses ; there to remain during the sale, and for a reasonable time before and afterwards. If the court shall be of opinion that he has such a right, the verdict to be set aside ; if otherwise, judgment to be entered for the…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
The defendant has been indicted for a nuisance, in placing goods on the footway and carriage-way of one of the public streets of the city, and suffering them to remain for the purpose of being sold there, so as to render the passage less convenient, although not entirely to obstruct it. He admits the fact and justifies it, under the plea of his being one of the public auctioneers of the city. He contends, 1st, That what he has done is lawful, because it is necessary. 2dly, That it is authorised by an ordinance of the corporation.
1. It is true that necessity justifies actions,…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Commonwealth v. AlburgerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
- Hart v. Mayor of AlbanyNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Stuart v. FoxSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1930
- Fitch v. New York, Providence & Boston RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1890
- State ex rel. Beatty v. Mayor of OmahaNebraska Supreme Court · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.