Legal Opinion

City of Allegheny v. Pittsburgh, Allegheny & Manchester Passenger Railroad

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 4, 1897No. Appeal, No. 119PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal, No. 119, Oct. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1893, No. 147, on verdict for plaintiff for less than the amount claimed. Assumpsit to recover a tax on alleged dividend. Before White, J. At the trial it appeared that the defendant was chartered by the special act of April 12, 1859, under which it was required to pay a tax upon declared dividends to the city of Allegheny.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 119, Oct. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1893, No. 147, on verdict for plaintiff for less than the amount claimed. Assumpsit to recover a tax on alleged dividend. Before White, J. At the trial it appeared that the defendant was chartered by the special act of April 12, 1859, under which it was required to pay a tax upon declared dividends to the city of Allegheny. On July 25, 1889, the stockholders of the defendant company entered into an agreement to lease its property and franchises to the Pittsburgh, Allegheny & Manchester Traction…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mitchell,

The Passenger Railway Company, appellee, was chartered by the special act of April 12, 1859, by the provisions of which it was to declare dividends “ of so much of the profits of said company as shall appear advisable to the directors thereof,” but in no case to exceed the amount of the net profits of the company. By the twelfth section of the act the company was required, inter alia, to pay to the city of Allegheny a certain per centage “ of the dividends declared.” The city of Allegheny by ordinance gave its consent to the occupation of its *421streets upon the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Matson's Ford Bridge Co. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Green v. BissellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1907
  2. In Re Goodyear T. & R. Co., Corp. Income T., 1966, 1967, 1968Supreme Court of Vermont · 1975
  3. Knight v. Alamo Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Rose v. BarclaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  5. Booth v. Gross, Kelly & Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1925

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