Brower v. Kantner
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 162, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Schuylkill Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 1, dismissing bill in equity. Rule on bill, answer and replication.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 162, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Schuylkill Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 1, dismissing bill in equity. Rule on bill, answer and replication. Before Pershing, P. J. It appears from the record that the nature of the proceeding was on bill in equity to restrain defendants from fraudulently and forcibly taking possession of the wardenship of the Schuylkill county prison and matronship of the Schuylkill county prison, the possession of said wardenship and matronship being then rightfully in possession of said complainants. A decree was filed dismissing the bill by…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Chriam,
This is an appeal from a decree dismissing the plaintiffs’ bill, in which they prayed for a decree restraining the defendants “ from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs to exercise the rights and duties of warden and matron of said Schuylkill county prison.” The plaintiff claimed that he was the de facto warden while the defendants claimed that James H. Levan had been duly appointed to the office. The appeal does not involve the possession or ownership of real or personal property, or any right, the value of which does not exceed fl,000, but does involve the right to a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth ex rel. Henderson v. O'DonnellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
3Cited by4 opinions
- Walker's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Caruso v. GalloSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Neubert v. Armstrong Water Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Nixon's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911