Skip to main content
· 5/4/1891

Beaumont v. Wilkes-Barre City

Citations

  • 142 Pa. 198
  • 21 A. 888
  • 1891 Pa. LEXIS 725

Syllabus

<p>1. The city of Wilkes-Barre, not accepting the provisions of the act of May 23, 1874, P. L. 230, is governed, as to the grading, paving, etc., of streets and the collection of the cost thereof, by § 27, paragraph 6, of its incorporating act of May 4, 1871, P. L. 539; act of April 5, 1867. P. L. 841; and §3, paragraphs vi.-ix., of the general borough act of April 3, 1851, P. L. 323.</p> <p>2. Said act of April 5, 1867, authorizing the assessment of the cost or grading, paving, etc., of streets, against abutting properties according to the front width thereof, to the middle of every such street, is not in conflict with, nor, though a special act, is it repealed by § 1, article ix. of the constitution, providing for uniformity of taxation.</p> <p>3. Notice to individuals affected, of a “proposition” to pave a street at their expense, and opportunity to be heard thereon before the council or a committee thereof, is a sufficient compliance with the statutory requirements, though given before a final ordinance designating the kind of paving and fixing the contract price has been perfected.</p> <p>4. Where, after such notice, lotowners were heard upon the proposition to pave, by petition, remonstrance, and in person, the burden, in a bill in equity to invalidate an ordinance subsequently enacted and regular and legal on its face, is upon the plaintiffs to aver and prove the omission of any essential prerequisite in the antecedent proceedings.</p> <p>5. Where a final ordinance for the paving, etc., enacted in 1876, was but the culmination of proceedings, first entertained in 1883 and at no time wholly abandoned, wherein individuals affected were heard and objected on other grounds, they are estopped from objecting that a notice of the “ proposition ” in April, 1884, was too remote.</p> <p>6. The final ordinance cannot be held illegal because the lotowners did not have personal notice, at the time thereof, of proceedings to measure, value, map and schedule the properties

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • trial court should not be required, sua sponte, to instruct on lesser-included offenses because defense strategy may be to secure a complete acquittal
  • trial court should not be required, sua sponte, to instruct on lesser-included offenses because defense strategy may be to secure a complete acquittal
  • trial court should not be required, sua sponte, to instruct on lesser-included offenses because defense strategy may be to secure a complete acquittal
  • trial court should not be required, sua sponte , to instruct on lesser-included offenses because defense strategy may be to secure a complete acquittal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clark, Green, Paxson, Steerett, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.