Bor. of Washington v. McGeorge

Washington County Court of Common Pleas

Bor. of Washington v. McGeorge

23 A. 222, 146 Pa. 248, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1217

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Washington County

DecidedJanuary 4, 1892

DocketNo. 205

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 23 A. 222 (Bor. of Washington v. McGeorge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Washington County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bor. of Washington v. McGeorge, 23 A. 222, 146 Pa. 248, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1217 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion,

Mb. Justice Stebbett :

The facts recited in the case stated presented for the consideration of the court below three questions: (1) Whether the act of April 22, 1889, therein referred to, is constitutional ; (2) whether the borough ordinance conforms to the act; (3) whether payment of the license tax due by defendant, under the provisions of the ordinance, can be enforced by suit before a justice of the peace.

These questions were rightly answered in the affirmative, and judgment on the case stated was accordingly entered in favor of the plaintiff. The act in question is entitled “ A further supplement to an act regulating boroughs,.....au[254]*254thorizing the corporate authorities to levy and collect a license tax on hacks, carriages, and other vehicles carrying persons or property for pay, ” etc. The first section of the act empowers the council of every borough “ to enact ordinances establishing reasonable rates of license tax on all hacks, carriages, omnibuses, and other vehicles used in carrying persons or property for pay, and limit the compensation for the same within the limits of said borough. ” The second section provides “ that said ordinance shall be enforced as other borough ordinances are by law enforced, and the license tax shall be collected as other licenses, taxes, fines, and penalties are now authorized by law to be collected.”

The power of the legislature to pass such an act cannot be questioned. There is nothing either in the title or in the body of the act that offends against any provision of the constitution. The title gives to all persons interested ample notice of the subject of the act; quite sufficient, at least, to lead them to an inquiry into the body of the bill. Nothing more than that is required: Allegheny Co. Home’s Appeal, 77 Pa. 80. The power given in the body of the act to limit compensation, etc., cannot be regarded as a distinct subject from that clearly expressed in the title. On the contrary, it is germane to that subject and hence the act is not in conflict with § 3, article III., of the constitution: Millvale Borough v. Railway Co., 131 Pa. 1.

We are also of opinion that the borough ordinance sufficiently conforms to the act; and also, that suit for the collection of the license tax was properly instituted before a justice of the peace.

There was no error in entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion,

Mb. Justice Stebbett :

The facts recited in the case stated presented for the consideration of the court below three questions: (1) Whether the act of April 22, 1889, therein referred to, is constitutional ; (2) whether the borough ordinance conforms to the act; (3) whether payment of the license tax due by defendant, under the provisions of the ordinance, can be enforced by suit before a justice of the peace.

These questions were rightly answered in the affirmative, and judgment on the case stated was accordingly entered in favor of the plaintiff. The act in question is entitled “ A further supplement to an act regulating boroughs,.....au[254]*254thorizing the corporate authorities to levy and collect a license tax on hacks, carriages, and other vehicles carrying persons or property for pay, ” etc. The first section of the act empowers the council of every borough “ to enact ordinances establishing reasonable rates of license tax on all hacks, carriages, omnibuses, and other vehicles used in carrying persons or property for pay, and limit the compensation for the same within the limits of said borough. ” The second section provides “ that said ordinance shall be enforced as other borough ordinances are by law enforced, and the license tax shall be collected as other licenses, taxes, fines, and penalties are now authorized by law to be collected.”

The power of the legislature to pass such an act cannot be questioned. There is nothing either in the title or in the body of the act that offends against any provision of the constitution. The title gives to all persons interested ample notice of the subject of the act; quite sufficient, at least, to lead them to an inquiry into the body of the bill. Nothing more than that is required: Allegheny Co. Home’s Appeal, 77 Pa. 80. The power given in the body of the act to limit compensation, etc., cannot be regarded as a distinct subject from that clearly expressed in the title. On the contrary, it is germane to that subject and hence the act is not in conflict with § 3, article III., of the constitution: Millvale Borough v. Railway Co., 131 Pa. 1.

We are also of opinion that the borough ordinance sufficiently conforms to the act; and also, that suit for the collection of the license tax was properly instituted before a justice of the peace.

There was no error in entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A. 222, 146 Pa. 248, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bor-of-washington-v-mcgeorge-pactcomplwashin-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack