Commonwealth ex rel. Witmer v. Commissioners of Lancaster County
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
N the 17th of this month, C. Smith on bebalf of ham Witmer, obtained a rule on the commissioners of Lancaster county, to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue against them, to compel them to make out an order on the treasurer of the said county in favour of Witmer for 58,444 dollars 44 cents, tbe amount of the valuation of his ■. stone brids-e over the river Conestoga.
Read the full summary
N the 17th of this month, C. Smith on bebalf of ham Witmer, obtained a rule on the commissioners of Lancaster county, to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue against them, to compel them to make out an order on the treasurer of the said county in favour of Witmer for 58,444 dollars 44 cents, tbe amount of the valuation of his ■. stone brids-e over the river Conestoga. The commissioners shewed for cause a variety of malters., 'two only of which it is material to,state. 1. That Court had no jurisdiction, the writ of mandamus being its nature an original action, which could only issue from…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
A rule having been granted on the commissioners of Lancaster county, to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding them to draw an order on the treasurer of the said county, in favour of Abraham Witmer, for 58,444 dollars 44 cents the amount of the valuation of the stone bridge over the river Conestoga, the commissioners appeared, and shewed cause upon which we are now to decide.
On the 22d September 1787, an act of assembly was passed, authorizing Abraham Witmer to build a bridge over the Conestoga, and vesting the property thereof, when built, in the said Abraham…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Chance v. TempleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
- City of Little Rock v. United States ex rel. HowardCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1900
- State ex rel. Green Bay & Minnesota Railroad v. JenningsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Select & Common Councils v. Commonwealth ex rel. Bair & ShenkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
- Stoughton v. RappaloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1817
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.