Mott v. Pennsylvania Railroad
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Equity. Motion for special injunction.(a) These were three bills in equity. 1. The first was filed by Henry S. Mott, Arnold Plumer, and George Scott, as Canal Commissioners of the State of Pennsylvania, and as individual taxpayers, against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and its officers, his Excellency James Pollock, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and Henry S. Magraw, the State Treasurer.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Motion for special injunction.(a) These were three bills in equity. 1. The first was filed by Henry S. Mott, Arnold Plumer, and George Scott, as Canal Commissioners of the State of Pennsylvania, and as individual taxpayers, against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and its officers, his Excellency James Pollock, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and Henry S. Magraw, the State Treasurer. It set forth that the complainants had been duly elected to fill the office of canal commissioners of the Commonwealth, and had been duly qualified according to law; and that they held and exercised the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Lewis, C. J.
— Three bills in equity have been filed, in each of which a motion is made for an injunction to prevent the sale of the Main Line of the public improvements of the state under the Act of Assembly of 16th May 1857. These motions draw into question the rights of the canal commissioners, of the state creditors, of the tax-payers of the Commonwealth, and of the stockholders of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, to interfere in the great question involved. On all the questions about to be decided, we now proceed to deliver the unanimous opinion…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Providence Bank v. BillingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Mumma v. Potomac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1834
- Piqua Branch of State Bank of Ohio v. KnoopSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Atwater v. Town of WoodbridgeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1826
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Commonwealth State Emp. Ret. System v. Dau. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Asplund v. HannettNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1926
- Leckenby v. Post Printing & Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1918
- City of McKeesport v. McKeesport & Reynoldton Passenger Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Dodge v. Adams Express Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.