City of York School District's Appeal

32 A. 92, 169 Pa. 70, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1071
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 30, 1895·No. Appeal, No. 32·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

One of the grounds on which the learned judges of the court below set aside the report of the viewers and dismissed appellant’s petition, is, that “ the act of assembly of June 6, 1893, under which the view was had is. unconstitutional.” In that conclusion, they were clearly right for the second reason given by them in support thereof, viz: that the act in question is local and special and therefore unconstitutional. They further say : “ It is special legislation in the guise of a general law— the most specious and vicious form that special legislation' can assume.”

It requires neither argument nor citation of authorities to show that the reason thus assigned for declaring the act unconstitutional is both sound and conclusive. We express no opinion as to other reasons urged in support of the decree.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellant.

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

City of York School District's Appeal, 32 A. 92, 169 Pa. 70, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1071 (Pa. 1895).

32 A. 92 (City of York School District's Appeal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harristown Development Corp. v. Commonwealth
580 A.2d 1174 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1990)
Chester County Institution District v. Commonwealth
17 A.2d 212 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
In re Merger of Lower Turkeyfoot Township School District
33 Pa. D. & C. 222 (Somerset County Court of Common Pleas, 1938)
In re Wyoming Talley Co-op. Ass'n
198 F. 436 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1912)