Doylestown & Danborough Turnpike Road Co. v. Philadelphia & Easton Electric Railway Co.
Doylestown & Danborough Turnpike Road Co. v. Philadelphia & Easton Electric Railway Co.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The several assignments of error present but a single question for our consideration. The learned court below made absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense and the defendant appeals.
The plaintiff sues to recover certain sums of money reserved by way of rental under the terms of a written lease duly executed by both plaintiff and defendant, both of the parties being corporations. The defendant does not deny the execution of the lease; nor that the sums sued for are according to the terms of the lease due and in arrears; nor that by virtue of the lease it obtained possession of the property of the plaintiff company which it still holds, uses and enjoys. It undertakes to defend against the recovery of the rental reserved by the lease — the consideration money of that use and enjoyment — on the single ground that it was not within the charter powers of either of the companies to enter into the contract referred to. The application- of a well-established and familiar legal principle to such a state of facts makes it apparent that it is not competent for a defendant under such circumstances, to make such a defense. Even if it were clear — but upon this point we express no opinion — that the lease was ultra vires, the proposition that after it has been executed by one party, the other may retain the property acquired by the lease and at the same time deny its obligation to pay the consideration money, is entirely an untenable one.
If authority be needed to support a conclusion so eminently reasonable and fair, it will be found in Oil Creek,
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.