Legal Opinion

Murray v. Williams, Burgess

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 20, 1948No. Appeal, 194PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Arnold, J.,

This appeal is from a judgment in mandamus directing the appellant-burgess to issue licenses to the appellee for five pin ball machines on tender of the license fees.

An ordinance of the Borough of Elizabeth provided that: (1) No person shall possess a device for a game known as “pin ball” without procuring a license; (2) an application for license shall be made to the Burgess in writing, and under oath, setting forth: (a) his present and previous occupation; (b) the length of his present and his previous place of residence; (c) the name of the owner of the premises where…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kaufman Construction Co. v. HolcombSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  2. Tanenbaum v. D'AscenzoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  3. Kistler v. Swarthmore BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. Stefanich v. Beaver FallsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bernice v. Borough of FolcroftCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  2. Hill v. Borough of DormontCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Earhart v. Board of SupervisorsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  4. Cambridge Springs Borough v. KinestonCrawford County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API