Legal Opinion

Collingdale Boro. v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 8, 1922No. Appeal, No. 305PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Sadler,

The Borough of Collingdale, by ordinances of 1899 and 1903, authorized the Philadelphia, Morton & Swarthmore Street Railway Company to construct its line on Parker Street. Both grants provided for the future repair of the highway at the railway’s expense. Subsequently, a merger was had with another corporation, and the consolidated company was leased to the present defendant, which agreed to “pay for all paving done or to be done after the first day of July, 1906, whether or not the obligation to do said paving shall have been imposed by the local authorities…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. City of Worcester v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
  2. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co. v. Wisconsin Ex Rel. City of MilwaukeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  3. Allegheny v. Millville, Etna & Sharpsburg Street Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  4. Reading v. United Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
  5. Borough v. Chambersburg & Gettysburg Electric Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Philadelphia v. Holmes Electric Protective Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. Swarthmore Borough v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. Brobston v. Darby BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. West Penn Railways Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. First Nat'l Bank of N.J. v. Cattie Bros.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925

13 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