Redding v. Borough

56 A. 431, 207 Pa. 248, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 489
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 9, 1903·No. Appeal, No. 78·Published·Cited by 8 cases

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

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

56 A. 431 (Redding v. Borough) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)