Shaaber v. Angelica Water Co.

17 A. 209, 2 Monag. 435, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1392
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 18, 1889
DocketAppeal, No. 153
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 A. 209 (Shaaber v. Angelica Water Co.) 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
Shaaber v. Angelica Water Co., 17 A. 209, 2 Monag. 435, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1392 (Pa. 1889).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is a voluminous record; a long master’s report; a large amount of testimony, and no less than fifty-three assignments of error, most of which relate to the findings of fact by the master. It would require an opinion of inconvenient length to discuss the case in detail. Nor is there anything which requires it. The learned judge who heard the argur ment below has examined the case with the care and attention for which he is conspicuous, and has sustained all the master’s findings of fact. No such clear error has been pointed out as would justify us in reversing him.

Nor is there anything to be found within the four corners of this record which would warrant us in holding that the lease made by the Angelica Water Co. to the Angelica Ice Co. is void. The whole case turns upon this question. The election of the directors of the water company who made the lease was regular; the letting was authorized by a resolution of the board of directors upon the terms contained in the lease; the stockholders of the water company had not only an opportunity to take stock in the ice company, but were urged to do so. It is only after the ice company had become a success, and these appellants saw they had made a mistake in not going into the ice company that complaint was made. Had the ice company proved a failure, it is not likely this bill would have been filed. A chancellor is slow to move in such a case as this.

The decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellants. H. j. l.

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

Related

People ex rel. Goff v. Kirk
65 Misc. 657 (New York County Courts, 1908)
Symmes v. Union Trust Co.
60 F. 830 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 A. 209, 2 Monag. 435, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaaber-v-angelica-water-co-pa-1889.