Legal Opinion

Cochranton Borough v. Cochranton Telephone Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 11, 1909No. Appeal, No. 165PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal, No. 165, April T., 1909, by-defendant, from order of C. P. Crawford Co., May T.,. 1907, No. Ill, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Cochranton Borough v. Cochranton Telephone Company. Appeal from justice of the peace in an action to recover license fees on telephone poles.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 165, April T., 1909, by-defendant, from order of C. P. Crawford Co., May T.,. 1907, No. Ill, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Cochranton Borough v. Cochranton Telephone Company. Appeal from justice of the peace in an action to recover license fees on telephone poles. Bouton, P. J., filed the following opinion: From the plaintiff’s declaration it appears that on May 8, 1900, the borough of Cochranton passed an ordinance entitled “A general ordinance relating to the entry upon, over or under or the use or occupation of any…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Rice, P. J.,

The facts of this case as developed by the statement of claim and the affidavit of defense are very clearly and satisfactorily summarized in the opinion of the learned judge specially presiding in the common pleas and need not be recited by us. The first ground of defense set up is, that the agreement of David Berringer was personal to him and not binding upon his successors or assigns and therefore not binding upon the defendant company. This averment introduced into the case no fact which did not appear in the plaintiff’s statement of claim. It did not put in issue the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Appeal of the City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
  2. Allegheny City v. People's Natural Gas & Pipeage Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
  3. Philadelphia Co. v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
  4. School District v. Enterprise Natural Gas Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Carlisle & Mechanicsburg Street Railway Company's AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  2. Valley Rys. v. Mechanicsburg BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  3. Johnstown Telephone Co. v. Ferndale BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  4. Windber Telephone Co. v. Scalp Level BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API