Smith v. Kingston Borough
14 A. 170, 120 Pa. 357, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 490
Opinion
The report of the learned referee so thoroughly and well disposes of the facts and law of this case, that nothing is left for us to do but adopt his opinion and affirm the judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith v. Kingston Borough, 14 A. 170, 120 Pa. 357, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 490 (Pa. 1888).
14 A. 170 (Smith v. Kingston Borough) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sweigart v. Borough of Ephrata
344 A.2d 766 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
Borough of Newtown v. Murfit
79 Pa. D. & C. 135 (Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, 1951)
Haverford School v. Department of Highways
8 Pa. D. & C. 305 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1926)
Borough of Adamstown v. Hartman
75 Pa. Super. 588 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)
Canton Borough v. Williams
67 Pa. Super. 239 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Philadelphia v. Gouss
56 Pa. Super. 496 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1914)
Black v. Roebuck
17 Pa. Super. 324 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1901)
City of Chester v. First National Bank
9 Pa. Super. 517 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1899)
City of Pittsburg ex rel. Flanagan v. Daly
5 Pa. Super. 528 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)
Commonwealth v. Smith
4 Pa. Super. 1 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)
Borough of Beltzhoover v. Maple
18 A. 650 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1889)