Punxsutawney v. Carmalt
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 191, April T., 1910, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Jefferson Co., Aug. T., 1908, No. 309, on verdict for defendant in case of Punxsutawney Borough v. Edward A. Carmalt. Assumpsit for the cost of curbing. Before Reed, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the defendant owned land abutting on North Main street in the borough of Punxsutawney.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 191, April T., 1910, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Jefferson Co., Aug. T., 1908, No. 309, on verdict for defendant in case of Punxsutawney Borough v. Edward A. Carmalt. Assumpsit for the cost of curbing. Before Reed, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the defendant owned land abutting on North Main street in the borough of Punxsutawney. On February 4, 1907, a borough ordinance was passed providing for the curbing of North Main street for a stretch, which at the time was an unimproved country road. The entire width of the street was twenty-five feet. The curb on either side…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The power of the borough to require the curbing of the footwalks on its streets at the expense of the abutting owners cannot be denied. Such authority is expressly given by the Act of April 3, 1851, P. L. 320. It was under this act that the borough proceeded in setting the curb, for the collection of the cost of which this action was brought. No question is raised as to the regularity of the proceeding and unless the borough failed to construct a side or footwalk curb it is entitled to a judgment on the verdict. It is contended that what the defendant is charged with…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dickinson v. City Council of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Martin v. WilliamsportSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Guinter v. WilliamsportSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Borough of Beltzhoover v. MapleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889