Bowers v. Braddock Borough
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 64, Oct. T., 1895, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1894, No. 483, dismissing exceptions to report of viewers, and in refusing to allow defendant an appeal. Exceptions to report of viewers.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 64, Oct. T., 1895, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1894, No. 483, dismissing exceptions to report of viewers, and in refusing to allow defendant an appeal. Exceptions to report of viewers. On July 10, 1894, William Bowers presented a petition in which he averred as follows : That your petitioner became and still is the owner, in fee simple, of a certain lot in the borough of Braddock in said county, being lots Nos. 132 and 133 in the Masonic Bank plan. That subsequent to the time that your petitioner became the owner of the said premises, to wit:…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Geeen,
The first and principal question urged in the argument of the appellant is, “ does the act of May 16, 1891, P. L. 75, supersede and repeal the act of March 24, 1878, P. L. 129, in so far as it relates to the assessment of damages for change of grade in boroughs ? ” We have just filed an opinion in the case of Seaman v. The Borough of Washington, ante, 467, in which we decide this question in the negative, and hold that the act of 1878 is not repealed by the act of 1891. For the reasons there stated we make the same ruling in the present case.
As to the second…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gwinner v. Lehigh & Delaware Gap RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
3Cited by18 opinions
- Marinclin AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- City of Birmingham v. GravesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Webber v. Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1911
- Deer v. Sheraden BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Lima Building Stone Quarry, Inc. v. CommonwealthSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.