York City v. Holtzapple
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 27, March T., .1917, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. York Co., Aug. T., 1915, No. 42, on verdict for plaintiff in case of York City v. George E. Holtzapple. Scire facias sur municipal lien.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 27, March T., .1917, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. York Co., Aug. T., 1915, No. 42, on verdict for plaintiff in case of York City v. George E. Holtzapple. Scire facias sur municipal lien. Before Ross, J. At the trial the defendant claimed that certain work .done in 1874 on Princess street, on which his property abutted, was ah original paving, and that a paving done -in pursuance of an ordinance of 1914, was a renewal pavement for the cost of which he was not liable. The •facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. When William Heltzel, a former street…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kephart, J.,
We have frequently stated the rule that will relieve abutting property owners from 'liability for subsequent street improvements. It is unnecessary to repeat it. Philadelphia v. Kerchner, 62 Pa. Superior Ct. 562; Pottsville v. Jones, 63 Pa. Superior Ct. 180; Easton City v. Hughes, not yet reported. The work claimed as an original paving was done in 1874, under the authority of council. It consisted of spreading limestone ballast evenly over the roadway, converted into a hard surface by the passing traffic, and kept in repair by placing loose stones in the holes or ruts.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Harrisburg v. FunkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Pottsville v. JonesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- York City v. EysterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Philadelphia v. KerchnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
3Cited by3 opinions
- Philadelphia v. SchollSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Philadelphia, to Use v. MullerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- City of Philadelphia v. ShallcrossSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928