Commonwealth v. Amer. Baseball Club of Phila.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Kephart,
June 25, 1927:
I feel that it is my duty to record my dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority of the court on the judgment about to be entered in this case. I place it On the ground that quo warranto is not the proper remedy in such a case, and, therefore, the court below was without power to enter the decree it did.
This is an unusual proceeding to compel obedience to a penal law. Quo warranto, the writ used for that purpose, is an extraordinary remedy, to be applied with extreme caution, and should never be allowed except under express…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Sparhawk v. Union Passenger Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
- Klein v. Livingston ClubSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Commonwealth v. Monongahela Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Specht v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848
- Malone v. Lancaster Gas Light & Fuel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.