Philadelphia v. Dibeler
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 177, July Term 1891, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1889, No. 648, M. L. D., on verdict for plaintiff. Scire facias sur municipal claim by the city of Philadelphia to the use of John M. Mack against John B. Dibeler, owner.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 177, July Term 1891, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1889, No. 648, M. L. D., on verdict for plaintiff. Scire facias sur municipal claim by the city of Philadelphia to the use of John M. Mack against John B. Dibeler, owner. At the trial before Bregy, J., it appeared that the claim on which suit was brought was for paving Woodland avenue in front of defendant’s property with vitrified brick in accordance with an ordinance approved March 30, 1889. The defendant put in evidence an ordinance of the councils of the city of Philadelphia, approved…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We do not think the learned judge below committed error in refusing to admit in evidence, “the contract of William B. Conklin with the city of Philadelphia, dated Jan. T4, 1884, to regrade Woodland avenue, from the end of the stone pavement near 50th street to Cobb’s creek, and to macadamize the southeast side thereof, and also the bills and statements showing a settlement with Conklin for said work.” Had the evidence referred to been admitted, it would have been the duty of the court to declare, as matter of law, that it did not amount to a defence to the claim of the city for…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Philadelphia ex rel. Mack v. EddlemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Philadelphia v. HaferSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Harrisburg v. FunkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Chester City v. EvansSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Philadelphia to Use of MacK Paving & Construction Co. v. HeyerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.