Legal Opinion

Jolly v. Monaca Borough

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 7, 1907No. Appeal, No. 163PublishedCited by 29 opinions

Appeal, No. 163, Oct. T., 1906, by defendants, from decree of C. P. Beaver Co., June T., 1906, No. 5, granting and continuing a preliminary injunction in case of A. J. Jolly et al. v. Monaca Borough etal. Bill in equity for an injunction. Before Holt, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. The court granted a preliminary injunction which it subsequently continued. .Error assigned was the decree of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Potter,

The borough of Monaca erected waterworks in the year 1895. For some ten years, the cost of maintaining the works was paid out of the general and special taxes assessed on the taxpayers of the borough. But on July 13,1905, the borough passed an ordinance requiring all consumers within the borough *347to pay certain rates for the use of water, either by contract according to the number of rooms in the dwelling where the water was used for domestic or household purposes, or by the quantity; and requiring the users of water for manufacturing purposes, or for any purpose…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Penn Iron Co. v. City of LancasterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
  2. Sewickley Water Works Commissioners v. Sewickley BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Tito Pollice Violet Pollice, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Linda Mansfield, in No. 99-3856 v. National Tax Funding, L.P. Capital Asset Research Corporation, Ltd. Tito Pollice Violet Pollice, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Linda Mansfield v. National Tax Funding, L.P. Capital Asset Research Corporation, Ltd. In No. 99-3857 Tito Pollice Violet Pollice, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Linda Mansfield, in No. 99-4049 v. National Tax Funding, L.P. Capital Asset Research Corporation, Ltd. Gladys Houck Marie Demitras Bragette Parker Mary Walsh, on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Mary Tabb, in No. 99-3858 v. Capital Asset Research Corp., Ltd. National Tax Funding, L.P. Capital Asset Holdings Gp Inc. Gladys Houck Marie Demitras Bragette Parker Mary Walsh, on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Mary Tabb v. Capital Asset Research Corp., Ltd. National Tax Funding, L.P. Capital Asset Holdings Gp Inc. In No. 99-3859 Gladys Houck Marie Demitras Bragette Parker Mary Walsh, on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Mary Tabb, in No. 99-3898 v. Capital Asset Research Corp., Ltd. National Tax Funding, L.P. Capital Asset Holdings Gp IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
  2. Shirk v. Lancaster CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  3. Hamilton's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  4. Barnes Laundry Co. v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  5. In Re AdamsDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984

24 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