City of Wilkes-Barre v. Chase
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 38, Jan. T., 1898, by defendant, front judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co.,- Dec. T., 1897, No. 437, in favor of plaintiff on case stated. Case stated. Before Schuyler, P. J., of the 3d judicial district, specially presiding. It appears from the case stated that the receiver of taxes of the city of Wilkes-Barre under the Act of April 2, 1872, P. L. 740, must have his office in such place in said city as may be approved by the council of said city of Wilkes-Barre.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 38, Jan. T., 1898, by defendant, front judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co.,- Dec. T., 1897, No. 437, in favor of plaintiff on case stated. Case stated. Before Schuyler, P. J., of the 3d judicial district, specially presiding. It appears from the case stated that the receiver of taxes of the city of Wilkes-Barre under the Act of April 2, 1872, P. L. 740, must have his office in such place in said city as may be approved by the council of said city of Wilkes-Barre. The city would not approve of any other place for the defendant to keep his office other than an office in the city building,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Wickham, J.,
By section 29 of the Act of May 4, 1871, P. L. 539, incorporating the city of Wilkes-Barre, the receiver of taxes was required to maintain his office in the fifth ward in said city. This part of the act was repealed, however, by the supplemental Act of April 2, 1872, P. L. 740, which provides that the receiver “ may have his office in such place as may be approved by the council.” In construing these acts, it was held by the present president judge of this court, in Gilchrist v. City, 5 Kulp, 289, that the city is under no legal obligation to furnish the receiver with an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brolasky v. FergusonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
- Pott v. LesherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1795
3Cited by1 opinion
- Tourison v. EngardSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906