Nanticoke Borough v. Bell Telephone Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 35, March T., 1911, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1909, No. 402, for defendant in case tried by the court under the Act of April 17, 1905, P. L. 183,' in suit of Nanticoke Borough v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania. Petition to determine amount of license fee.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 35, March T., 1911, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1909, No. 402, for defendant in case tried by the court under the Act of April 17, 1905, P. L. 183,' in suit of Nanticoke Borough v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania. Petition to determine amount of license fee. Fuller, J., filed the following opinion: This proceeding is founded upon the Act approved April 17, 1905, P. L. 183, and the case has been heard on petition, answer, replication and evidence “in the way and manner provided by law for the hearing of cases in equity.” FACTS. 1. A dispute has…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
This was a proceeding under the Act of April 17,1905, P. L. 183. As the statute expressly provides that such proceedings shall be heard and decided “in the way and manner provided by law for the hearing of cases in equity,” it would necessarily follow, as we held in P. & A. Tel. Co. v. Braddock, 43 Pa. Superior Ct. 456, that we must accept the findings of fact adopted by the learned judge who heard the cause “as having the same conclusive force and effect as would the verdict of a jury.” We cannot disturb or interfere with them except in cases of flagrant and manifest error.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pittsburg & Allegheny Telephone Co. v. Braddock BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
3Cited by3 opinions
- New York & Pennsylvania Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Monessen Borough v. Central District & Printing Telegraph Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Bell Telephone Co. v. HazletonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917