Williams v. City of Pittsburgh
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county : Of October and November Term 1876, No 235. The question involved was the same as that raised in Pusey’s Appeal, antea 67. The facts were these : In 1873 the councils of Pittsburgh passed an ordinance providing for the opening of a part of Forty-seventh street in Pittsburgh.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county : Of October and November Term 1876, No 235. The question involved was the same as that raised in Pusey’s Appeal, antea 67. The facts were these : In 1873 the councils of Pittsburgh passed an ordinance providing for the opening of a part of Forty-seventh street in Pittsburgh. The report of the board of viewers to assess the damages for the opening of the street, was confirmed by the councils on October 1st 1874. On October 14th 1874, Henry W. Williams and John W. McCord, executors of Anna M. Irwin, filed an appeal to the Quarter…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Agnew
This case is governed by the decision just made, in the appeal of William B. Pusey. The Acts of Assembly under which the proceedings took place beloAV, in each case, are nearly identical; those relating to the city of Allegheny being transcripts of those relating to the city of Pittsburgh, so far as the proceedings in question are involved. See Acts 6th January 1864, Pamph. L. 1131; and 13th May 1871,- Pamph. L. 840. The appeal in this case Avas properly certified into the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, under the Act of 13th June 1874, Pamph. L. 283. This act appears to have been overlooked by…
2Cited by1 opinion
- In re Widening of Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1889