Legal Opinion

Plymouth Township v. Chestnut Hill & Norristown Railway

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 20, 1895No. Appeal, No. 146PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal, No. 146, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Montgomery Co., June T., 1894, No. 5, dismissing bill in equity. Bill in equity to restrain the construction of a street railway. The case was heard on bill, answer and proofs. Swartz, P. J., filed the following opinion, by which the facts appear: “ The defendant company obtained the consent of Plymouth township to build an electric railway upon a public road in said township.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 146, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Montgomery Co., June T., 1894, No. 5, dismissing bill in equity. Bill in equity to restrain the construction of a street railway. The case was heard on bill, answer and proofs. Swartz, P. J., filed the following opinion, by which the facts appear: “ The defendant company obtained the consent of Plymouth township to build an electric railway upon a public road in said township. The plaintiff contends that the right to build such electric railway expired on July 20, 1894, and this bill was brought to restrain the defendant…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mitchell,

This case is so clearly within the principle of Allegheny v. Millville etc. Ry. Co., 159 Pa. 411, that it would be sufficient to reverse it with a reference to that decison, in which it was held that the consent of the local authorities is a prerequisite-to the construction of a passenger railway, and that if such consent is given upon conditions, the railway company must-take it subject thereto or not at all.

*187As said in that case the right to consent or refuse is “ a gift directly from the constitution to the local bodies, and needs no help, nor permits any…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Allegheny v. Millville, Etna & Sharpsburg Street Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  2. Groff v. Bird-in-Hand Turnpike Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1889

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Salt Lake City v. Utah Light & Traction Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Community Natural Gas Co. v. Northern Texas Utilities Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1928
  3. Myersdale & Salisbury Street Railway Co. v. Pennsylvania & Maryland Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  4. Keystone State Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Ridley Park BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
  5. Minersville Borough v. Schuylkill Electric Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903

5 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