Clark v. Beamish

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Clark v. Beamish

169 A. 130, 313 Pa. 56, 1933 Pa. LEXIS 605

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 27, 1933

DocketAppeal, 13

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 169 A. 130 (Clark v. Beamish) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. Beamish, 169 A. 130, 313 Pa. 56, 1933 Pa. LEXIS 605 (Pa. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

Recognizing the importance of this case to the City and County of Philadelphia and to their taxpayers, as well as to the citizens of the entire Commonwealth, we of our own motion ordered its reargument, when the contentions of both sides were fully and ably presented. After mature consideration, our conclusion is that the determination arrived at by the court below is right, and we affirm on the portions of its opinion which appear in the reporter’s notes. It is our view, too, that appellants’ allegation as to the unconstitutionality of the act being not sustained, the bill disclosed no cause of action on which the court could grant relief and that, accordingly, the dismissal of the bill was proper. Certain questions raised by appellants before us and not covered by the court’s opinion, we deem to be immaterial in view of our determination on the main question in agreement with the conclusions reached below.

Decree affirmed at appellants’ cost.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Curiam,

Recognizing the importance of this case to the City and County of Philadelphia and to their taxpayers, as well as to the citizens of the entire Commonwealth, we of our own motion ordered its reargument, when the contentions of both sides were fully and ably presented. After mature consideration, our conclusion is that the determination arrived at by the court below is right, and we affirm on the portions of its opinion which appear in the reporter’s notes. It is our view, too, that appellants’ allegation as to the unconstitutionality of the act being not sustained, the bill disclosed no cause of action on which the court could grant relief and that, accordingly, the dismissal of the bill was proper. Certain questions raised by appellants before us and not covered by the court’s opinion, we deem to be immaterial in view of our determination on the main question in agreement with the conclusions reached below.

Decree affirmed at appellants’ cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A. 130, 313 Pa. 56, 1933 Pa. LEXIS 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-beamish-pa-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack