Simon v. City of York

York County Court of Common Pleas

Simon v. City of York

30 Pa. D. & C. 487, 1937 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 123

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, York County

DecidedOctober 20, 1937

Docketno. 110

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 Pa. D. & C. 487 (Simon v. City of York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Simon v. City of York, 30 Pa. D. & C. 487, 1937 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 123 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Niles, P. J.,

Petitioner alleges that since May 1,1937, he has maintained a junk business in the City of York, having leased from the now owner the premises whereon Samuel Williams, who died February 8, [488]*4881937, had conducted the business from February 1, 1923. The city officials have advised him to discontinue his business as a violation of an ordinance of March 29, 1935.

That ordinance prohibits the establishment of a junk yard or the enlargement of any then existing. It provides that any person violating shall, upon conviction before the mayor or alderman, be liable to a fine and imprisonment. Petitioner has been advised that the ordinance is unenforcible against him under the circumstances, and prays for a declaratory judgment construing his rights and for other appropriate relief.

The city filed an answer raising questions of law, the point of which is that the Declaratory Judgments Act of June 18, 1923, P. L. 840, and its supplement of April 25, 1935, P. L. 72, do not cover the case, and that the petition should be dismissed.

We are of the opinion that the situation presented is one in which the court has power to declare the rights, status, and legal relations of the parties as affected by the municipal ordinance. An actual controversy exists, with antagonistic claims which indicate imminent and inevitable litigation, and the court is satisfied that petitioner asserts a legal status in which he has a concrete interest challenged by the city, and that a declaratory judgment will serve to terminate the controversy, and that no statute provides a special form of remedy, such as contemplated by the act. Upon the facts set forth in the petition, a declaratory judgment or decree is appropriate and proper. The act is remedial. Its advantage is that it enables an issue to be determined before breach occurs.

And now, to wit, October 20, 1937, the questions of law raised by the City of York, respondent, are decided against it, and it is allowed 15 days to file an answer.

An exception is granted to defendants.

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

Niles, P. J.,

Petitioner alleges that since May 1,1937, he has maintained a junk business in the City of York, having leased from the now owner the premises whereon Samuel Williams, who died February 8, [488]*4881937, had conducted the business from February 1, 1923. The city officials have advised him to discontinue his business as a violation of an ordinance of March 29, 1935.

That ordinance prohibits the establishment of a junk yard or the enlargement of any then existing. It provides that any person violating shall, upon conviction before the mayor or alderman, be liable to a fine and imprisonment. Petitioner has been advised that the ordinance is unenforcible against him under the circumstances, and prays for a declaratory judgment construing his rights and for other appropriate relief.

The city filed an answer raising questions of law, the point of which is that the Declaratory Judgments Act of June 18, 1923, P. L. 840, and its supplement of April 25, 1935, P. L. 72, do not cover the case, and that the petition should be dismissed.

We are of the opinion that the situation presented is one in which the court has power to declare the rights, status, and legal relations of the parties as affected by the municipal ordinance. An actual controversy exists, with antagonistic claims which indicate imminent and inevitable litigation, and the court is satisfied that petitioner asserts a legal status in which he has a concrete interest challenged by the city, and that a declaratory judgment will serve to terminate the controversy, and that no statute provides a special form of remedy, such as contemplated by the act. Upon the facts set forth in the petition, a declaratory judgment or decree is appropriate and proper. The act is remedial. Its advantage is that it enables an issue to be determined before breach occurs.

And now, to wit, October 20, 1937, the questions of law raised by the City of York, respondent, are decided against it, and it is allowed 15 days to file an answer.

An exception is granted to defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Pa. D. & C. 487, 1937 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simon-v-city-of-york-pactcomplyork-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack