Legal Opinion

Millvale Borough

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 11, 1894No. Appeal, No. 41PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Appeal, No. 41, Oct. T., 1894, by-James Howard et al., complainants, taxpayers, from decree of Q. S. Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 14, refusing prayers of complainants. Prayer for supervision of corporate action. The complaint of appellants, taxpayers, averred : “ That prior to 1889 the borough of Millvale was without any supply of water and protection from fire.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 41, Oct. T., 1894, by-James Howard et al., complainants, taxpayers, from decree of Q. S. Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 14, refusing prayers of complainants. Prayer for supervision of corporate action. The complaint of appellants, taxpayers, averred : “ That prior to 1889 the borough of Millvale was without any supply of water and protection from fire. Frequently prior to that time the matter had been discussed among the residents and in the town council of the borough as to the ability of said borough to construct a waterworks system, and estimates of the cost thereof had…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Green,

A careful examination of the complaint in this case and of the answer and the affidavits submitted on both sides, satisfies us that the learned court helow was right in the conclusions reached in the opinion filed. We can scarcely doubt that the proceedings by the burgess and councils, having in view the erection of new works, were animated and conducted with an unseemly desire to injure the Bennett Water Company, to destroy the value of its franchises, to disregard the terms of the solemn contract made by the borough with that company and with an entire…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lehigh Water Company's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
  2. Appeal of the Borough of VeronaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
  3. Appeal of City of Wilkes-BarreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. White v. City of MeadvilleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
  2. Seitzinger v. Borough of TamaquaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
  3. Town of Sapulpa v. Sapulpa Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
  4. Lansdowne v. Citizens Electric Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  5. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. City of Sioux FallsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Dakota · 1904

8 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