Legal Opinion

Rutherford Water Co. v. Harrisburg.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 22, 1929No. Appeal, 6PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

To plaintiff’s bill in equity, defendant made a preliminary objection, apparently under the Act of June 7, 1907, P. L. 440, asserting “that, upon the facts averred, the plaintiff has a full, complete and adequate remedy at law.” It also filed a petition, said to be upon the authority of that statute and also of the Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23, setting forth, in addition to the averments of the bill, a number of “other facts and matters not appearing [therein], which will be at issue in the determination of the matter,” and praying a decision that a “court of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Railroad v. BogertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
  2. Sears v. Scranton Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  3. Lackawanna County v. JamesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  4. Borough v. KennedySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  5. Morrison v. Fayette CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Grime v. Department of Public InstructionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. Zerbe Township School District v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  3. Witney v. Lebanon CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  4. County Construction Co. v. Livengood Construction Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  5. Skelton v. Lower Merion TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929

28 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