Boggs Avenue
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 122, Oct. T., 1892, by Frank Shanley et al., from decree of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T., 1891, No. 498, dismissing exceptions to report of viewers. Heard with preceding cases. The facts as they appeared before White, J., were substantially similar to those of the preceding cases.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 122, Oct. T., 1892, by Frank Shanley et al., from decree of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T., 1891, No. 498, dismissing exceptions to report of viewers. Heard with preceding cases. The facts as they appeared before White, J., were substantially similar to those of the preceding cases. The exceptions filed by appellants, property owners, were among others as follows: “ 6. Neither the city of Pittsburgh nor the viewers have ascertained and determined the true costs and expenses of making said improvement, and the sum so reported is largely in excess of the actual cost and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
This case is ruled by Travers’s Appeal, decided at the present term. The sixth exception to the report should have been sustained by the court below and the report set aside or recommitted, that an assessment of costs and expenses might be made upon the basis pointed out in Bingaman v. The city of Pittsburgh, 29 W. N. 364, 147 Pa. 353.
The decree is set aside at the costs of the appellee and a procedendo awarded.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bingaman v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lafferty v. MilliganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895