Norristown Borough v. Puleo

69 Pa. Super. 265, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 65
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 2, 1918·No. Appeal, No. 320·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

Without reference to implied power express legislative authority is shown which sustains the action of the borough in enacting the ordinance under which the proceeding arose. The business of carrying on a junk shop is a proper subject of police regulation as is shown by Com v. Mintz, 19 Pa. Superior Ct. 283, and many other cases [271]*271relating to business of a similar character. Boro. of Sayre v. Phillips, 148 Pa. 482; Philadelphia v. Brabender, 201 Pa. 574, and Scranton v. Straff, 28 Pa. Superior Ct. 258, show the application of the principle. The case was carefully considered and well decided in the court below. It is unnecessary to enlarge on the opinion of the learned trial judge.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Norristown Borough v. Puleo, 69 Pa. Super. 265, 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 65 (Pa. Ct. App. 1918).

69 Pa. Super. 265 (Norristown Borough v. Puleo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Mattero
58 Pa. D. & C. 387 (Montgomery County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1947)
Borough of Temple v. General Baking Co.
22 Pa. D. & C. 380 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 1934)
City of Pittsburgh v. Streng
90 Pa. Super. 288 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)