Commonwealth v. New York
Citations
- 132 Pa. 591
- 19 A. 291
- 1890 Pa. LEXIS 857
Syllabus
<p>1. As § 5, article XYIT. of the constitution, prohibiting common carriers from engaging in mining, etc., or in any other business than that of common carriers, and from holding lands ribt necessary for their business, affixes no penalty for its violation, lands held in violation thereof are not liable to eseheat, although the franchises of the offending company may be forfeited therefor.</p> <p>(a) The act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 329, prohibits the acquisition or holding by a corporation of any real estate, either directly, or through a trustee or other device whatsoever, unless specially authorized by the laws of the commonwealth, and enacts that all property acquired or held in violation of the prohibition shall be escheated to the commonwealth by proceedings under quo warranto:</p> <p>2. Said act docs not authorize au escheat of lands held and used by a common carrier for the purpose of carrying on the business of mining coal for transportation over its works, for the violation of § 5, article XVII. of the constitution: the escheat which it provides for can be enforced only for the reason that an acquisition or holding of the lands is in violation of the prohibition of the act.</p> <p>3. In order to eseheat laud, under said act of 1855, upon the ground that it is held by a foreign railway corporation, without a license so to do from the commonwealth, it must appear that such corporation has either the legal or equitable title to the land itself; otherwise, no es-cheat can be declared, although such corporation may control the land, through its ownership of the stock of another corporation holding the title by authority of law.</p> <p>(5) A foreign railway company, having no license to hold mineral lands in this state, caused its president to purchase such lands by an agreement in his own name, furnishing to him the money required for a hand payment made on the contract: it theD purchased the charter of a Pennsylvania mining corporation, authorized to hold suc
Judges: Clark, Gordon, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Postal Tel. Cable Co. of Utah v. Oregon S. L. R.Utah Supreme Court· 1901-05-10· cited 38×
- Pueblo v. Rubert Hermanos, Inc.Supreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1938-07-30· cited 6×
- Common'h v. New York Etc. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1891-03-23
- Thiele & Seiler v. Crutcher & Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana· 1868-06-15
- Johnson v. GennissonSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1868-06-15
- People v. Rubert Hermanos, Inc.Supreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1938-07-30
- Edmunds v. Illinois Central RailroadIllinois Circuit Court· 1908-02-20
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.