Marbelite Co. v. Philadelphia
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Montgomery, J.:
I respectfully dissent.
I agree that Hemphill v. Lenz, 413 Pa. 9, 195 A. 2d 780 (1963), is not in point. That case was decided solely on the jurisdictional question relating to service of process to enforce a subpoena on Lenz, the treasurer of the plaintiff company, and I find no law which imposes on a creditor of a municipality the obligation of securing the approval of the controller or treasurer of such a body as a condition to entering suit for a claim. See Com. ex rel. Harkins v. Hinkson, City Treasurer, 161 Pa. 266, 28 A. 1081 (1894), where a treasurer…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hemphill v. LenzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Com. ex rel. Harkins v. HinksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Lancaster County v. Lancaster CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895