De Arment v. Kennedy

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

De Arment v. Kennedy

14 Pa. Super. 539, 1900 Pa. Super. LEXIS 78

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 26, 1900

DocketAppeal, No. 54

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 14 Pa. Super. 539 (De Arment v. Kennedy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

De Arment v. Kennedy, 14 Pa. Super. 539, 1900 Pa. Super. LEXIS 78 (Pa. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

William W. Portee, J.,

By the terms of the case stated, it appears that at the time of the execution of the agreement of sale Collins avenue, in the city of Pittsburg (upon which the property sold abutted), was graded and paved, and that the improvement was then fully completed. It further appears that the lot of ground was benefited by said improvement and was then liable to assessment to pay the cost thereof so soon as a board of viewers should be appointed to report thereon. Upon these facts, we are of opinion that this case is ruled by Lafferty v. Milligan, 165 Pa. 534. No well founded distinction can be drawn to take it out of the application of principles there laid down. A burden or incumbrance was imposed upon the land for the improvement, to be made a specific lien in amount as soon as the proceedings to ascertain the amount were completed. Under the agreement of sale the defendant was liable.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

William W. Portee, J.,

By the terms of the case stated, it appears that at the time of the execution of the agreement of sale Collins avenue, in the city of Pittsburg (upon which the property sold abutted), was graded and paved, and that the improvement was then fully completed. It further appears that the lot of ground was benefited by said improvement and was then liable to assessment to pay the cost thereof so soon as a board of viewers should be appointed to report thereon. Upon these facts, we are of opinion that this case is ruled by Lafferty v. Milligan, 165 Pa. 534. No well founded distinction can be drawn to take it out of the application of principles there laid down. A burden or incumbrance was imposed upon the land for the improvement, to be made a specific lien in amount as soon as the proceedings to ascertain the amount were completed. Under the agreement of sale the defendant was liable.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Pa. Super. 539, 1900 Pa. Super. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-arment-v-kennedy-pasuperct-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack