Opinion · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Common'h v. New York Etc. R.
Common'h v. N.Y. Etc. R., 139 PA 457 (Pa. 1891)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
- Date
- 1891-03-23
- Topic
- general
OPINION, Me. Chief Justice Paxson : This was a re-argument. When the case was first heard, a majority of the court were of the opinion that the question whether the manner in which the lands in controversy were held was a device to evade the act of April 26,1855, P. L. 329, should be passed upon by a jury. The judgment was accordingly reversed and the record sent down upon this single point: Commonwealth v.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Common'h v. New York Etc. R.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
OPINION,
Me. Chief Justice Paxson :This was a re-argument. When the case was first heard, a majority of the court were of the opinion that the question whether the manner in which the lands in controversy were held was a device to evade the act of April 26,1855, P. L. 329, should be passed upon by a jury. The judgment was accordingly reversed and the record sent down upon this single point: Commonwealth v. Railroad Co., 114 Pa. 340. In the meantime, another case between the same parties and involving precisely the same question, came up from Elk county. Upon a very careful consideration of it we came to the conclusion that we had erred in sending it to a jury, for the reason that the facts were all admitted, and it was for the court to pass upon their legal effect. All this fully appears in the opinion filed in that case: Commonwealth v. Railroad Co., 132 Pa. 591.
The judgment in the last case was for the defendants below, and was affirmed. We then ordered a re-argument of the case from Jefferson county, and it was heard at the present term of the court in the Eastern District. After a further consideration of the question, and the additional light furnished by
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Sterj&ett and Mr. Justice Clark. noted their dissent.