New Brighton Borough v. Biddell

50 A. 989, 201 Pa. 96, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 782
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 6, 1902·No. Appeal, No. 6·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

On this appeal the single question raised is as to the constitutionality of the act of March 31, 1897, and three reasons are assigned why it violates the constitution: first, it contravenes article 3, section 3, of the constitution; second, the act is in direct violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States and of section 9, article 1, of our constitution ; and, third, it is in conflict with article 3, section 7, clause 1, of the constitution of this state. In neither of these respects does the act offend the constitution, and the judgment of the Superior Court, sustaining it, is affirmed.

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

New Brighton Borough v. Biddell, 50 A. 989, 201 Pa. 96, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 782 (Pa. 1902).

50 A. 989 (New Brighton Borough v. Biddell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Inheritance Tax Penalties
30 Pa. D. & C. 189 (Pennsylvania Department of Justice, 1937)
McDonald Borough v. Davidson
193 A. 472 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Ligonier Borough v. Deeds
7 Pa. D. & C. 598 (Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, 1926)
Lutton v. Powell
7 Pa. D. & C. 245 (Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, 1925)
Commonwealth v. Levine
3 Pa. D. & C. 439 (Philadelphia County Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1923)
Towanda Borough v. Fell
69 Pa. Super. 468 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1918)
Charleroi Borough v. Bailey
54 Pa. Super. 331 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1913)
Commonwealth v. Kebort
26 Pa. Super. 584 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)