Shoemaker v. Harrisburg
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
EBBOB TO THE COTJBT OE COMMON PLEAS OE DAUPHIN COUNTY. No. 15 May Term 1888,* Sup. Ct.; court below, No.'358 January Term 1888, C. P. On December 5,1887, a scire facias sur municipal lien was issued in favor of tbe city of Harrisburg, for use of the Barber Asphalt Paving Company, against George J. Shoemaker, Mrs. M. Weightman, Mrs. Rose Scheffer, George E. Shoemaker, Mrs. Annie R. Evans and L. C. Shoemaker, owners or reputed owners.
Read the full summary
EBBOB TO THE COTJBT OE COMMON PLEAS OE DAUPHIN COUNTY. No. 15 May Term 1888,* Sup. Ct.; court below, No.'358 January Term 1888, C. P. On December 5,1887, a scire facias sur municipal lien was issued in favor of tbe city of Harrisburg, for use of the Barber Asphalt Paving Company, against George J. Shoemaker, Mrs. M. Weightman, Mrs. Rose Scheffer, George E. Shoemaker, Mrs. Annie R. Evans and L. C. Shoemaker, owners or reputed owners. The lien, as filed the same day to No. 1113 Municipal Tax Lien Docket, was “ for paving and curbing Market street from Front street to the Pennsylvania Railroad…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mr. Jhstice Sterrett :
The controlling question in this case is raised by the fourth specification of error, viz.: “ The court erred in entering judgment on the special verdict, in favor of plaintiff.” It appears that the municipal lien, on which the scire facias issued, was entered under and in, accordance with the act of May 24,1887, dividing cities of this state into seven classes, etc. The validity of the alleged lien depends solely on that act. It is not even suggested that there was or is any other warrant for the entry of the lien. In an opinion just filed in Ayars’ Appeal, No.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. City of HarrisburgCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1894
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. City of HarrisburgU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1894