Petition of Harry Kozovsky

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Petition of Harry Kozovsky

162 A. 326, 106 Pa. Super. 417, 1932 Pa. Super. LEXIS 258

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 3, 1932

DocketAppeal 345

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 A. 326 (Petition of Harry Kozovsky) 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

Petition of Harry Kozovsky, 162 A. 326, 106 Pa. Super. 417, 1932 Pa. Super. LEXIS 258 (Pa. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:,

The regularity of the proceedings is challenged for the single reason that the report of the commissioners was not “made to the said court of quarter sessions at the next term” as provided by Act of May 23, 1874, P. L. 230, §2. This objection might prevail were it not for the fact that the court extended the time of making the report to the next succeeding term. There is an identical provision in the Act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 551, §1, relating to roads, and it has been the uniform practice of the courts upon proper application to extend the time for making the report, and this practice has been approved by our appellate courts; see Sewickley Township Boad, 26 Pa. Superior Ct. 572, and cases cited in 36 P. S. page 295. There is no reason why this provision in the act in question *419 providing for the division of wards should be more strictly construed than the same provision in the road act above referred to.

Appeal dismissed at bar.

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

Per Curiam:,

The regularity of the proceedings is challenged for the single reason that the report of the commissioners was not “made to the said court of quarter sessions at the next term” as provided by Act of May 23, 1874, P. L. 230, §2. This objection might prevail were it not for the fact that the court extended the time of making the report to the next succeeding term. There is an identical provision in the Act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 551, §1, relating to roads, and it has been the uniform practice of the courts upon proper application to extend the time for making the report, and this practice has been approved by our appellate courts; see Sewickley Township Boad, 26 Pa. Superior Ct. 572, and cases cited in 36 P. S. page 295. There is no reason why this provision in the act in question *419 providing for the division of wards should be more strictly construed than the same provision in the road act above referred to.

Appeal dismissed at bar.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A. 326, 106 Pa. Super. 417, 1932 Pa. Super. LEXIS 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petition-of-harry-kozovsky-pasuperct-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack