Case Name: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1965-11-29
Citations: 419 Pa. 471
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 363
Parties: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, Appellant.
Judges: Before Bell, O. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 419
Pages: 471–475

Head Matter:
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, Appellant.
Argued October 12, 1965.
Before Bell, O. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.
Ernest R. von Starck and Arthur Littleton, with them Robert H. Young, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for appellants.
William T. Coleman, Jr. and Lewis H. Van Dusen, Jr., with them Richardson Dilworth, David P. Bruton, and Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Kohn & Dilks, and Drinker, Biddle & Reath, for appellees.
Matthew W. Bullock, Jr., Second Deputy City Solicitor, and Edward G. Bauer, Jr., City Solicitor, with them Gerald Gornish, Assistant City Solicitor, for City of Philadelphia, appellee.
November 29, 1965:

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam,
This is a declaratory judgment proceeding seeking a determination: (1) of the validity and enforceability of a provision in a contract consummated in 1907, as amended, giving the City of Philadelphia the right to purchase "all the property and franchises" of the Philadelphia Transportation Company; and, (2) the formula to be applied in determining the purchase price, as provided for in the contract.
This appeal, under the Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23, §1, 12 P.S. §672, questions the jurisdiction of the court to resolve the issues involved in a declaratory judgment proceeding.
Our examination of the record is convincing that the lower court properly overruled the jurisdictional objection, and that every issue, presently pertinent, is correctly and adequately answered in the excellent opinion of the court below.
Order affirmed.