Case Name: Chestnut Hill Hospital v. City of Philadelphia et al., Appellants
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1923-11-19
Citations: 82 Pa. Super. 200
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 273
Parties: Chestnut Hill Hospital v. City of Philadelphia et al., Appellants.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 200–201

Head Matter:
Chestnut Hill Hospital v. City of Philadelphia et al., Appellants.
November 19, 1923:
Argued October 18, 1923.
Appeal, No. 273, Oct. T., 1923, by City of Philadelphia, from decree of O. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1921, No. 9294, in favor of plaintiff, in the case of Chestnut Hill Hospital v. The City of Philadelphia, Cyrus Adler, Dimner Beeber, Thomas S. Boyle, Joseph W. Catherine, Avery D. Harrington, David H. Lane, Anna Lane Lingelbach, Edward Martin, Wm. Eowen, Thomas Shallcross, Franklin Smedley, Walter George Smith, Harry T. Stoddart, John Wanamaker and George A. Welsh, comprising the Board of Public Education for the School District of Philadelphia, and W. Freeland Kendrick, receiver of taxes of the City of Philadelphia.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Affirmed.
Bill in equity to restrain the collection of taxes. Before Bartlett and McDevitt, JJ.
The court in banc granted an injunction restraining defendants from the assessment or collection of any taxes against plaintiff’s property. The City of Philadelphia appealed.
Error assigned was the decree of the court.
Mayne R. Longstreth, Assistant City Solicitor, and with him David J. Smyth, City Solicitor, for appellant.
Wm. Findlay Brown, and with him Charles B. Downs, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Gawthrop, J.,
This case was argued with the appeal of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia to No. 272, October Term, 1923. The controlling facts do not differ from the facts of that case. The question involved is the same. For the reasons stated in an opinion this day filed in the former case, the decree is affirmed at appellants' cost.