Legal Opinion

Commonwealth, for Use v. Baldwin Bros Co

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 16, 1936No. Appeal, 153PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, P. J.,

This case is to be determined upon the general principles of equity which govern in subrogation. The doctrine of subrogation is of purely equitable origin. Its application is always controlled for the promotion of justice. It will never be enforced therefore to defeat a superior or even an equal equity in another: Robeson’s App., 117 Pa. 628, 633, 12 A. 51; Royal Arcanum v. Cornelius, 198 Pa. 46, 50, 47 A. 1124.

The facts may be summarized as follows: On May 16, 1932 the Secretary of Highways of Pennsylvania awarded The Baldwin Brothers Company—hereinafter called…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Sundheim v. Philadelphia School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  2. Grand Council of Pennsylvania Royal Arcanum v. CorneliusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
  3. Appeal of RobesonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
  4. Commonwealth v. American Surety Co. of N.Y.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. Commonwealth v. American Surety Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Associated Hosp. Serv. of Phil. v. PustilnikSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  2. First National Bank & Trust Company v. StolarSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  3. In re Patterson Building & Loan Ass'n, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1938
  4. Union Joint Stock Land Bank v. ByersDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API