Armstrong Co. v. Kittanning Borough Overseers
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, to C. P. Armstrong Co., No. 63, Oct. T., 1888, to review a judgment for defendant on a case-stated •wherein Armstrong Co. was plaintiff and the Kittanning Borough Overseers of the Poor were defendants, at Dec. T., 1887, No. 26. Green and Hand, JJ., absent.
Read the full summary
Error, to C. P. Armstrong Co., No. 63, Oct. T., 1888, to review a judgment for defendant on a case-stated •wherein Armstrong Co. was plaintiff and the Kittanning Borough Overseers of the Poor were defendants, at Dec. T., 1887, No. 26. Green and Hand, JJ., absent. The following facts were agreed upon by the case-stated: “ On April 9, 1885, the Overseers of the Poor of Kittanning borough purchased from E. Buffington, Esq., 52 acres of land,'in fee simple, situate in Valley township, Armstrong county, which purchase, on Feb. 20, 1886, was duly approved by the court of quarter sessions of said…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
There can be no doubt but that the learned judge of the court below came to a proper conclusion when he gave judgment in favor of the defendant in the case now in hand. The only remarkable thing about it is that the county commissioners should have undertaken to tax, for county purposes, the property of the Kittanning poor-district, for, if the statutory maintenance of the poor be not a purely public charity, the definition of such a charity would be indeed difficult. But, if the judicial opinion of this court be required in support of the learned judge’s decision, it may be found…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Township of Cumru v. Directors of Poor for BerksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886