Legal Opinion

Commonwealth ex rel. Price & Roberts v. Commissioners of Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 24, 1835PublishedCited by 12 opinions

On a previous day, Price, for himself and Hugh Roberts; and G. L. Ashmead for Thomas Clyde, had obtained rules to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to the Commissioners of the County of Philadelphia, commanding them to draw orders on the County Treasurer for the payment of certain sums of money alleged to be due to the rela.tors, under the following circumstances.

Read the full summary

On a previous day, Price, for himself and Hugh Roberts; and G. L. Ashmead for Thomas Clyde, had obtained rules to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to the Commissioners of the County of Philadelphia, commanding them to draw orders on the County Treasurer for the payment of certain sums of money alleged to be due to the rela.tors, under the following circumstances. In consequence of the opening of certain streets in the City and County of Philadelphia, damages had been assessed pursuant t.o-the Acts of Assembly, in favor of several persons whose property had been taken away for the…

1Per curiam

This rule must be discharged, and the mandamus denied. It appears by the affidavit of the Commissioners, that there is no money in the treasury,' except that which is wanted to defray the ordinary and current expenses of the County. The writ of mandamus is not of course. It will be granted when a plain case of necessity is shown, and where, in the discretion of the Court, it appears to be advisable. In this case we should probably stop the wheels of the county government, if the mandamus were allowed.

Rule discharged.

2Cited by12 opinions

  1. Sinking Fund Commissioners of Phila. v. Phila.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. White v. Mayor of DecaturSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
  3. Williamsport v. Citizens' Water & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  4. City of Little Rock v. United States ex rel. HowardCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1900
  5. State ex rel. Hathorn v. United States Express Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API