Arnold v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 203, Oct. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1902, No. 343, on verdict for defendant in case of Mary A. Arnold v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Company. Writ of dower unde nihil habet. Before Wilson, J., specially presiding. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed..
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Porter, J.,
The Clearfield and Mahoning Railway Company was duly *454incorporated, by letters patent dated May 28, 1892, for the purpose of constructing a line of railroad from a point on the Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway, at or near Jefferson line, in Clearfield county, Pennsylvania, to a connection with the Beech Creek Railroad at or near Clearfield, Clear-field county, Pennsylvania. The company was duly organized, and having caused experimental lines to be surveyed and marked upon the ground, the president and board of directors of said company did, on May 31, 1892, select,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Moore v. . the Mayor, Aldermen, C., of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Williamsport R. Co. v. Phila. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Thurber & Stevenson v. Townsend & WilburNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Workman v. MifflinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Johnston v. CallerySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Briegel v. BriegelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Wilson v. Public Service CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Auen v. DiCesareSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Templeton v. Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Auen v. DiCesareSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.