Commonwealth v. Monongahela Bridge Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 2, May T., 1906, by plaintiff, from judgment of (L P. Dauphin Co., Commonwealth Docket, 1900, No. 181, on case tried by the court without a jury in suit of Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney General v. Monongahela Bridge Company. Quo warranto to forfeit the franchises of a corporation. Before Weiss, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Potter,
This was an action of quo warranto brought by the Commonwealth ex rel. The Attorney General, against the Monongahela Bridge Company, and based on an alleged forfeiture of its franchises. The suggestion for the writ stated that the attorney general was informed as to the facts alleged therein by the Pittsburg and Birmingham Traction Company. Trial by jury was dispensed with, under a stipulation of the parties, and the case was heard by the court under the provisions of the Act of April 22, 1874, P. L. 109. The facts were found by the trial judge substantially as…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Exchange Bank v. Macon Construction Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Monongahela Bridge Co. v. Pittsburg & Birmingham Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Truby v. SeybertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849
- Rhawn v. Edge Hill Furnace Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Appeal of Forcey & MitchellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Zambelli Fireworks Manufacturing Co. v. WoodCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- Kuhn v. BuhlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Commonwealth v. Amer. Baseball Club of Phila.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Margiotti v. Union Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Martin v. D. B. Martin Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1913
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.