Redding v. Borough

56 A. 431, 207 Pa. 248, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 489
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 9, 1903
DocketAppeal, No. 78
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 56 A. 431 (Redding v. Borough) 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
Redding v. Borough, 56 A. 431, 207 Pa. 248, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 489 (Pa. 1903).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The learned judge below found that at the time of the making of the contract for the sewer by Diulus Brothers, the indebtedness of the borough was not in excess of the constitutional limit, and the decree must be affirmed on that portion of his opinion and conclusions.

It is true that the report of the viewers did not assess the whole cost of the sewers on the abutting properties, but charged $1,066.89 of it upon the borough. But there was no evidence that that sum was not payable and actually paid by the borough out of current funds.

Decree affirmed with costs.

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

Related

Pittsburgh Paving Co. v. Pittsburgh
3 A.2d 905 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Duane v. Philadelphia
185 A. 401 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Wright v. Consolidated School District No. 1
1925 OK 99 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Mitsler v. Eye
1924 OK 1107 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
O'Rear v. Sartain
69 So. 554 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
McGuire v. Philadelphia
91 A. 622 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1914)
Goodson v. Dean
55 So. 1010 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)
Frost v. Central City
120 S.W. 367 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 A. 431, 207 Pa. 248, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redding-v-borough-pa-1903.