Case ID: pa_129/html/0478-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mb. Justice Clabk:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COMMONWEALTH v. NEW YORK, L. E. & W. R. CO.
    APPEALS BY PLAINTIEE AND DEFENDANT FROM THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE DAUPHIN COUNTY.
    Argued June 6, 1889 —
    Decided October 7, 1889.
    Commonwealth v. Lehigh V. R. Co., ante, 429, and Commonwealth v. New York etc. R. Co., ante, 468, followed.
    Before Sterrett, Clark, Williams, McCollum and Mitchell, JJ.
    Nos. 36, 46 May Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 200 September Term 1887, C. P.
    On April 13, 1887, upon report made, the auditor general and state treasurer stated and entered a settlement of account for taxes against the New York, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, of three mills upon the nominal value of scrip, bonds, and certificates of indebtedness, OAvned by residents of Pennsylvania, per § 4, act of June 30, 1885, P. L. 193, for the year ending first Monday of November, 1886. From this settlement the defendant company appealed. The cause was submitted to tbe decision of the court, without a jury, under the provisions of the act of April 22,1874, P. L. 109. The specifications of objections to the settlement, the decision of the court below, Slmonton, P. J., the exceptions thereto filed by both plaintiff and defendant, the opinion of the court below disposing of the exceptions, and the final judgment, raised essentially the same questions as were raised in Commonwealth v. Lehigh V. R. Co., ante, 429, and Commonwealth v. New York etc. R. Co., ante, 463.
    Judgment having been entered in favor of the commonwealth for the tax for ten twelfths of one year, attorney general’s commission and interest, total, $2,546.86, the defendant company took the appeal to No. 36, and the commonwealth took the appeal to No. 46, the assignments of error raising essentially the same questions raised in the cases referred to.
    
      Mr. M. K. Olmsted, for the New York etc. R. Co.
    
      Mr. William S. Kirhpatriole, Attorney General, and Mr. John J?. Sanderson, Deputy Attorney General, for the commonwealth.
   commonwealth’s appeal.

Opinion,

Mb. Justice Clabk:

For the reasons given in our opinion filed in the Commonwealth’s Appeal in Commonwealth v. Lehigh Yalley Railroad Co. argued at this term and not yet reported [ante, 429], this case is reversed and judgment is now entered in favor of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the sum of three thousand seven hundred and sixty-five dollars, with interest according' to law, and costs.

Tax at the rate of 3 mills, .... $2,643.00

Penalty, 10 per cent,..... 264.30

Attorney General’s commissions, . . 132.15

Interest at 12 per cent, ..... 725.82

$3,765.00

NEW YORK ETC. B. CO.’S APPEAL.

Opinion, Mb. Justice Clabk :

This case is ruled by Commonwealth v. New York etc. R. Co., argued at this term and not yet reported [ante, 463].

Judgment affirmed.