F. J. Kress Box Co. v. Pittsburgh

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

F. J. Kress Box Co. v. Pittsburgh

4 A.2d 528, 333 Pa. 121, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 694

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 26, 1939

DocketAppeal, 53

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 4 A.2d 528 (F. J. Kress Box Co. v. Pittsburgh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

F. J. Kress Box Co. v. Pittsburgh, 4 A.2d 528, 333 Pa. 121, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 694 (Pa. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The court below having found that the establishment of an incinerator plant, with the most approved appliances, and its normal operation, including the convergence of wagons bearing garbage, is not a nuisance per se, and there being evidence upon which to base that finding, following our usual rule in cases of alleged nuisances, the decree must be affirmed. If the operation of the plant does, become a nuisance in fact, appellants have their remedy, either by a new proceeding or under the present bill, of which the court below will retain jurisdiction.

The other questions raised have been , passed upon in support of the decree of the court below in Sheets et al. v. Armstrong et al., 307 Pa. 385, and other decisions.

The erection and operation of the incinerator plant by the City was in its proprietary capacity. See Gemmill v. Calder et al., 332 Pa. 281. This latter case could not have been decided as it was if such had not been the holding. This, however, does not affect the conclusion reached in the present case.

Decree affirmed at appellants’ cost.

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

Per Curiam,

The court below having found that the establishment of an incinerator plant, with the most approved appliances, and its normal operation, including the convergence of wagons bearing garbage, is not a nuisance per se, and there being evidence upon which to base that finding, following our usual rule in cases of alleged nuisances, the decree must be affirmed. If the operation of the plant does, become a nuisance in fact, appellants have their remedy, either by a new proceeding or under the present bill, of which the court below will retain jurisdiction.

The other questions raised have been , passed upon in support of the decree of the court below in Sheets et al. v. Armstrong et al., 307 Pa. 385, and other decisions.

The erection and operation of the incinerator plant by the City was in its proprietary capacity. See Gemmill v. Calder et al., 332 Pa. 281. This latter case could not have been decided as it was if such had not been the holding. This, however, does not affect the conclusion reached in the present case.

Decree affirmed at appellants’ cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.2d 528, 333 Pa. 121, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/f-j-kress-box-co-v-pittsburgh-pa-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack