Kensington Electric Co. v. City of Philadelphia

Citations

• 187 Pa. 446
• 41 A. 309
• 1898 Pa. LEXIS 826

Syllabus

<p>Mandamus — Remedy at law — Practice.</p> <p>A proceeding by mandamus for the enforcement of a claim is not favored where the party instituting it has a remedy in the usual-course of law.</p> <p>Municipalities— Mandamus — Disputed claim.</p> <p>Where an ordinance of a city of the first class gives valuable privileges to an electric light company on condition that the company shall light certain public buildings, and a dispute arises between the city and the company as to what buildings shall be lighted, and the director of public safety refuses to countersign the company’s warrants on the ground that it has not furnished light to certain buildings, the remedy of the company is an action at law against the city, and not mandamus against the director of public safety.</p> <p>It seems that where an ordinance gives to an electric light company valuable privileges, and provides that the company shall light all city buildings occupied as police and fire stations within a territory designated, the company may be required to light a new building erected in the vicinity of an old one as a substitute for the old building.</p> <p>It seems that in a city of the first class the director of public safety may, without any special ordinance of councils, withhold payment for materials supplied to his department when the city has a counterclaim against the party furnishing them.</p>