Wistar v. Philadelphia
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: Of January Term 1875, No. 91. This was a scire facias sur mechanics’ lien, issued September 12th 1874, by the city of Philadelphia, to the use of Joseph Johnson, James Holgate and Lafayette Horter, against Richard Wistar.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: Of January Term 1875, No. 91. This was a scire facias sur mechanics’ lien, issued September 12th 1874, by the city of Philadelphia, to the use of Joseph Johnson, James Holgate and Lafayette Horter, against Richard Wistar. The claim was filed February 10th 1874, “ against all that certain lot on the east side of Broad street, at the distance of 263 feet north from Race street, containing in front on Broad street 121-| feet, * * * for work done and materials furnished on Broad street in front of said lot, and duly assessed and charged as follows:—…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Agnew
What we have to deal with here, is the affidavit of defence. Does it set forth a sufficient ground to defeat the plaintiff’s recovery ? Want of power to impose the alleged liability is clearly a good defence. The question is not whether the legislature might authorize such a claim to be made, but whether this authority has been granted.
The original and supplemental affidavits are diffuse, setting forth many things unnecessary to be noticed. Premising that the claim filed is a naked charge for 121J feet of curbstone laid opposite the defendant’s lot, without circumstances stated, except that…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Michener v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Philadelphia ex rel. DePaul v. Philadelphia Authority for Industrial DevelopmentSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Carlisle Borough v. FladgerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Philadelphia ex rel. Parker v. HenrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Reading City v. HeilmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902