Commonwealth v. Keystone Benefit Ass'n
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 12, May T., 1895, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., March T., 1891, No. 7, on quo warranto in favor of defendant. Quo warranto to show cause why defendant’s business should not be closed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 12, May T., 1895, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., March T., 1891, No. 7, on quo warranto in favor of defendant. Quo warranto to show cause why defendant’s business should not be closed. Before McPherson, J. From the record it appeared that the Keystone Benefit Association was chartered by a decree of the court of common pleas of Beaver county, Pa., February 1, 1892, under the act of May 28,1891, P. L. 107, which is supplementary to the corporation act of April 22, 1871. This act is as follows: “ An act to authorize and empower certain corporations incorporated…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchelu,
The proviso to the act of 1891 certainly presents a very difficult question, as the final clause appears to restrict the operation of the act to a class of corporations, to wit, insurance companies, which are not included within the enacting part of the act itself. It would not follow however that the act would be void because of a repugnancy between its affirmative body and a restrictive proviso, but it is not necessary to consider the case in this aspect, as there is a fair construction which avoids the apparent repugnancy. This is so lucidly and convincingly…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Marcus v. Heralds of LibertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Bothwell v. York CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Kolesar v. Slovak Evangelical UnionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- White v. Empire State Degree of HonorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Allegheny County Commissioners' CaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.