Borough of Duquesne v. Kunze

7 Pa. Super. 313, 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 289
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 17, 1898·No. Appeal No. 78·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

We can add little to the opinion filed by the court below in entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $302.44 under the terms of the case stated. The traction company procured from the borough authorities the right to lay tracks upon Duquesne avenue provided the former should “pave or pay the reasonable cost of paving ” a certain portion of the street. If the company had themselves paved the street, the question raised here could not have arisen. They however chose the second alternative. It was nevertheless the company’s money that paid for the paving. It was in some sense a paving by •the company through the instrumentality of the city.

If however the paving be regarded as having been done by the borough itself then is the case well disposed of by the court below in saying “ The borough has been reimbursed by the traction company for the cost of the paving and it cannot again collect the cost of the same from the abutting properties.”

The assignments of error are dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Borough of Duquesne v. Kunze, 7 Pa. Super. 313, 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 289 (Pa. Ct. App. 1898).

7 Pa. Super. 313 (Borough of Duquesne v. Kunze) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Borough v. Randall
112 A. 112 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Borough of Sharpsville v. Randall
73 Pa. Super. 61 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1919)
West Chester Borough v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.
38 Pa. Super. 603 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1909)
Marcoz v. Wilmerding Borough
37 Pa. Super. 185 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)