Fox v. Fell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Fox v. Fell

162 A. 212, 307 Pa. 559, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 573

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 13, 1932

DocketAppeal, 190

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 A. 212 (Fox v. Fell) 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

Fox v. Fell, 162 A. 212, 307 Pa. 559, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 573 (Pa. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Linn,

Complainants, executors and trustees, filed their bill to restrain defendants, constituting the board of revision of taxes for Philadelphia County, from levying and collecting the four-mill tax payable under the Act of *561 June 17, 1913, P. L. 507, as amended by the Act of May 13, 1927, P. L. 985, from the estate of their testator for the years 1927-8-9-30 and 31. Defendants answered.

On November 28,1931, counsel for both parties agreed of record that the case should be finally heard on bill and answer. On the same day they also stipulated that the amount of the taxes involved was $3,251.37, for which, with interest, judgment should be entered against the plaintiffs if “the court should decide that the Act of May 13,1927, P. L. 985, is constitutional.” After hearing, the learned court below held that the amendment is constitutional and dismissed the bill, but failed to decree payment of the taxes in accordance with the agreement. In Miller, Admr., v. Northampton Co. [the preceding case], it was held that the amendment is constitutional; for the reasons there stated we agree with the conclusion reached below. To give effect to the agreement of the parties, the record is remitted with instructions to supplement the decree by ordering that plaintiffs pay to defendants for the use of the City of Philadelphia (Act of July 11, 1923, 1038; Phila. v. Kolb, 288 Pa. 359) the sum of $3,251.37 with interest, as stipulated in the record, costs to be paid by appellants.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Linn,

Complainants, executors and trustees, filed their bill to restrain defendants, constituting the board of revision of taxes for Philadelphia County, from levying and collecting the four-mill tax payable under the Act of *561 June 17, 1913, P. L. 507, as amended by the Act of May 13, 1927, P. L. 985, from the estate of their testator for the years 1927-8-9-30 and 31. Defendants answered.

On November 28,1931, counsel for both parties agreed of record that the case should be finally heard on bill and answer. On the same day they also stipulated that the amount of the taxes involved was $3,251.37, for which, with interest, judgment should be entered against the plaintiffs if “the court should decide that the Act of May 13,1927, P. L. 985, is constitutional.” After hearing, the learned court below held that the amendment is constitutional and dismissed the bill, but failed to decree payment of the taxes in accordance with the agreement. In Miller, Admr., v. Northampton Co. [the preceding case], it was held that the amendment is constitutional; for the reasons there stated we agree with the conclusion reached below. To give effect to the agreement of the parties, the record is remitted with instructions to supplement the decree by ordering that plaintiffs pay to defendants for the use of the City of Philadelphia (Act of July 11, 1923, 1038; Phila. v. Kolb, 288 Pa. 359) the sum of $3,251.37 with interest, as stipulated in the record, costs to be paid by appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A. 212, 307 Pa. 559, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-fell-pa-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack