Legal Opinion

Philadelphia to Use of MacK Paving & Construction Co. v. Neely

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 17, 1922No. Appeal, 205PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

This is an action of scire facias sur municipal claim for paving, assessed according to *the foot-front rule. The court below made absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense and the defend' ant appeals.

The only defense averred in the affidavit was that the property was rural and not subject to assessment under the foot-front rule. The reason stated in the opinion of the learned judge of the court below, for making the rule absolute, was that the affidavit did not state sufficient facts, with regard to the character of the property involved,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. City of McKeesport v. SolesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
  2. McKeesport v. SolesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  3. City of Reading v. O'ReillySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  4. Philadelphia v. DobbinsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. WilsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Township of Mt. Lebanon v. RobinsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  3. Borough of Cheswick v. StuartSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API