Com. ex rel. Hooton v. Wilmington & Northern R. R.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, No. 425, Jan. T., 1888, to C. P. Chester Co., to review a judgment for defendant in an alternative mandamus, tried before the court without a jury, at Aug. T., 1886, No. 75. Green & Clark, JJ., absent.
Read the full summary
Error, No. 425, Jan. T., 1888, to C. P. Chester Co., to review a judgment for defendant in an alternative mandamus, tried before the court without a jury, at Aug. T., 1886, No. 75. Green & Clark, JJ., absent. The petition for mandamus, filed June 14, 1886, averred, in substance (more fully set out in the opinion of the court below), that, on Jan. 19, 1874, the Wilmington & Reading R. R. Co., which already had two mortgages on its main line, placed a mortgage on a branch road for $500,000, under the Act of March 26, 1869. This mortgage recited that the company had built the branch road with…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This is a long, dreary and uninteresting record. Were we to go over it in detail, it would involve-an opinion as long, dreary and uninteresting as the record itself. Moreover, no lawyer would ever read it unless beguiled into doing so by something amounting almost to a false pretence, and, in such case, would be likely to rise from its perusal with a feeling that his time had been wasted. We shall content ourselves with one or two general remarks.
It is immaterial that, in drawing the release of the mortgage recorded in Mortgage Book No. 20, it was erroneously described as having…
2Cited by1 opinion
- State v. HerveyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969