Rader v. Kriebel

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Rader v. Kriebel

32 Pa. Super. 548, 1907 Pa. Super. LEXIS 52

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 25, 1907

DocketAppeal, No. 128

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 Pa. Super. 548 (Rader v. Kriebel) 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

Rader v. Kriebel, 32 Pa. Super. 548, 1907 Pa. Super. LEXIS 52 (Pa. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We concur with the learned president judge below in the conclusion, and in his satisfactory opinion in support of it, that it was not the intention of the legislature to have the Act of May 1, 1905, P. L. 318 operate retrospectively so as to affect the obligation of a township in its contract with the state highway department, under the provisions of the Act of [555]*555April 15, 1903, P. L. 188, to pay one-sixth of the cost of the improvement -of a public road in the township, where such contract as well as the contract under which the work was done were entered into, and the work was begun, before the passage of the act of 1905, although the work under the contract was not fully completed until a few months afterward.

The decree is affirmed, the costs of this appeal to be paid by A. M. Rader, the appellant.

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

Per Curiam,

We concur with the learned president judge below in the conclusion, and in his satisfactory opinion in support of it, that it was not the intention of the legislature to have the Act of May 1, 1905, P. L. 318 operate retrospectively so as to affect the obligation of a township in its contract with the state highway department, under the provisions of the Act of [555]*555April 15, 1903, P. L. 188, to pay one-sixth of the cost of the improvement -of a public road in the township, where such contract as well as the contract under which the work was done were entered into, and the work was begun, before the passage of the act of 1905, although the work under the contract was not fully completed until a few months afterward.

The decree is affirmed, the costs of this appeal to be paid by A. M. Rader, the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Pa. Super. 548, 1907 Pa. Super. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rader-v-kriebel-pasuperct-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack