Common'h v. New York Etc. R.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL BY PLAINTIFF FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JEFFEESON COUNTY. No. 180 October Term 1885, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 151 May Term 1884, C. P. To the number and term of the court below, Mr. Lewis C. Cassidy, Attorney General, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, filed an information in quo warranto against the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company, a corporation of the state of New York, with notice to the North Western Mining & Exchange Company, a…
Read the full summary
APPEAL BY PLAINTIFF FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JEFFEESON COUNTY. No. 180 October Term 1885, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 151 May Term 1884, C. P. To the number and term of the court below, Mr. Lewis C. Cassidy, Attorney General, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, filed an information in quo warranto against the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company, a corporation of the state of New York, with notice to the North Western Mining & Exchange Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, for the purpose of escheating to the commonwealth certain coal lands in Jefferson county, the…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION,
Me. Chief Justice Paxson :
This was a re-argument. When the case was first heard, a majority of the court were of the opinion that the question whether the manner in which the lands in controversy were held was a device to evade the act of April 26,1855, P. L. 329, should be passed upon by a jury. The judgment was accordingly reversed and the record sent down upon this single point: Commonwealth v. Railroad Co., 114 Pa. 340. In the meantime, another case between the same parties and involving precisely the same question, came up from Elk county. Upon a very careful consideration of it…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. New YorkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney General v. New York, Lake Erie & Western RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886