TIOGA R CO v. COM. OF PENNSYLVANIA, 158 U.S. 440 (1895)

U.S. Supreme Court

TIOGA R CO v. COM. OF PENNSYLVANIA, 158 U.S. 440 (1895)

158 U.S. 440

TIOGA R. CO.
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.

NEW YORK, L. E. %& w. coal & railroad co./
v.
SAME.

NEW YORK, P. & O. R. CO.
v.
SAME.

Nos. 264, 265, and 266.

May 27, 1895

Mr. Justice SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court.

Page 158 U.S. 440, 441

are concerned, precisely like case No. 263, New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 15 Sup. Ct. 896. They call for no additional consideration, and, for the reasons given in No. 263, the judgment of the court below in the several cases is affirmed.

Mr. Justice HARLAN dissents.

M. E. Olmsted. for Railroad Cos.

Henry C. McCormick, Atty. Gen. Pa., and Jas. A. Stranahan, for the Commonwealth.


U.S. Supreme Court

TIOGA R CO v. COM. OF PENNSYLVANIA, 158 U.S. 440 (1895)

158 U.S. 440

TIOGA R. CO.
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.

NEW YORK, L. E. %& w. coal & railroad co./
v.
SAME.

NEW YORK, P. & O. R. CO.
v.
SAME.

Nos. 264, 265, and 266.

May 27, 1895

Mr. Justice SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court.

Page 158 U.S. 440, 441

are concerned, precisely like case No. 263, New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 15 Sup. Ct. 896. They call for no additional consideration, and, for the reasons given in No. 263, the judgment of the court below in the several cases is affirmed.

Mr. Justice HARLAN dissents.

M. E. Olmsted. for Railroad Cos.

Henry C. McCormick, Atty. Gen. Pa., and Jas. A. Stranahan, for the Commonwealth.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.