One hundred years with the State Fencibles : a history of the First Company State Fencibles, Infantry Corps State Fencibles, Infantry Battalion State Fencibles, and the Old Guard State Fencibles, 1813-1913 . ed, and intrusted the new key to the superintendentof the armory, but the building has since, at all times, been andnow is open for the use of plaintiffs precisely as they have usedit heretofore; that the personal property at the armory was pur-chased by the corporation, and the use and enjoyment of it by saidcompanies has not been interfered with by defendants; that thecorporation borrowe
One hundred years with the State Fencibles : a history of the First Company State Fencibles, Infantry Corps State Fencibles, Infantry Battalion State Fencibles, and the Old Guard State Fencibles, 1813-1913 . ed, and intrusted the new key to the superintendentof the armory, but the building has since, at all times, been andnow is open for the use of plaintiffs precisely as they have usedit heretofore; that the personal property at the armory was pur-chased by the corporation, and the use and enjoyment of it by saidcompanies has not been interfered with by defendants; that thecorporation borrowed money on April 14, 1897, to make improve-ments at the armory and issued eight bonds, of which five are out-standing, and for payment of which said personal property ispledged; that the sources of revenue of the corporation are duesof members unconnected with the National Guard, collectionsfrom citizens and moneys derived from the State and city by thebattalion, all of which are paid over to the treasurer of the corpo-ration and disbursed for the benefit of the battalion and main-tenance of the armory; that the plaintiffs and their companieshave not paid anything for the expenses of the armory since. 1901 DECISION OF THE COURT 2C)1 May 1, 1900, although regularly receiving an armory fuml fromthe city; and that on Dec. 6, 1900, plaintitts, with the coloneland other ofTicers of the Sixth Regiment, applied to City Councilsfor a transfer of the lease of the armory to tlie Sixth Regimenton the same grounds as alleged in this proceeding, hut the apjilica-tion was rejected. From this abstract it appears that the main question for deter-mination is, whether the four companies of the Sixth Regimentare entitled to the exclusive use and possession of the City Armoryor not; the solution of which depends upon that of the furtiierquestions; whether the said four companies constitute the InfantryBattalion of State Fencibles or not, and whether the present lesseeof the armory holds the term i
Size: 1286px × 1942px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, booksubjectpennsyl, bookyear1913
