Providence & Abington Turnpike & Plank Road Co. v. City of Scranton
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 127, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Sept. T., 1892, No. 722, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a contract. Before McPherson, J., of the 12th judicial district, specially presiding.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 127, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Sept. T., 1892, No. 722, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a contract. Before McPherson, J., of the 12th judicial district, specially presiding. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff and defendant in 1889 entered into a contract by which the former agreed to give up its toll gate within the limits of the city of Scranton in consideration of the city keeping in repair the turnpike roacl within the built up portion of the city. The city did not comply with its contract, and plaintiff brought suit for the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Green,
The purpose of the contract between the plaintiff and defendant in this case was to relieve the inhabitants of the city from the burden and the annoyance and inconvenience of having a toll gate, and paying toll, over the plaintiff’s turnpike road within the city. The portion of the road lying within the city limits became a part of Market street under the city act of incorporation of 1866, but in consequence of the turnpike having been built long before the incorporation of the city, the road was the private property of the plaintiff which was endowed with the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stormfeltz v. Manor Turnpike Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Wilson v. Allegheny CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- Conestoga & Big Spring Valley Turnpike Road Co. v. Lancaster CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dalton Street Railway Co. v. ScrantonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937