Howe v. Commissioners of Crawford County
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Crawford county. This was an application by O. Kenclell Howe, burgess of Titusville, for an order in the nature of a mandamus, to compel the commissioners of Crawford county to repair or rebuild a bridge over Oil creek, at Titusville, in said county. ' The bridge had been built by the county in 1820 by direction of the Quarter Sessions, under and by virtue of the Act of 1802, and had been repaired from time to time at the expense of the county,…
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Crawford county. This was an application by O. Kenclell Howe, burgess of Titusville, for an order in the nature of a mandamus, to compel the commissioners of Crawford county to repair or rebuild a bridge over Oil creek, at Titusville, in said county. ' The bridge had been built by the county in 1820 by direction of the Quarter Sessions, under and by virtue of the Act of 1802, and had been repaired from time to time at the expense of the county, hut at the time of this application the superstructure had by age and neglect become impassable, or nearly so. The…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Woodward, C. J.
County bridges, under our General Road Law of 13th June 1836, are such as are established agreeably to the provisions of the 35th section of that enactment, and it is only to such bridges that the remedial provisions of the subsequent sections of the act apply. The Oil Creek Bridge, in question here, is not such a bridge, because it was built long before the Act of 1836, hut it was nevertheless a county bridge *362under the prior Acts of Assembly, and by virtue of the very regular proceedings had in the Quarter Sessions of Crawford county…
2Cited by4 opinions
- County of Erie v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Whitmire v. Township of Muncy CreekSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Williamsport v. Lycoming CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- United States v. Cincinnati & M. V. R.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1904