Legal Opinion

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

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 17, 1922No. Appeal, 47PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

This is an action of scire facias sur municipal claim for paving. The court below entered judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, and the defendant appeals. The defendant, by his affidavit, attempted to set up two grounds of defense: (1) that the work for which the assessment was made was not the original paving of the street, but a repaving of what had long been a city street, and (2) that the property was rural in character, and, therefore, not subject to assessment by the foot-front rule, which had been applied in this proceeding.

The affidavit asserted…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Philadelphia ex rel. Mack v. EddlemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  2. Philadelphia v. HaferSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  3. McKeesport v. SolesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  4. Harrisburg v. FunkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
  5. Philadelphia v. DibelerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Petition of SulewskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Borough of Montoursville v. EckSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  3. City of Johnstown v. HowarthSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API