City of Philadelphia v. Richards

Citations

• 124 Pa. 303
• 16 A. 802
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1035

Syllabus

<p>1. A lien upon a municipal claim for paving and curbing being of purely statutory creation, if the claim do not aver upon its face all the facts necessary to sustain its validity, it may be summarily stricken off on motion.</p> <p>2. But it is unnecessary that the claim should set out the provisions of the ordinance or ordinances under which the work was to be done and directing the maimer of its execution, with an averment of compliance therewith, as it is sufficient if the necessary proof is made at the trial.</p> <p>3. Connellsville Bor. v. Gilmore, lo W. 1ST. 343; Gans v. Philadelphia, 102 Pa. 97, and Philadelphia v. Dungan, ante, 52, distinguished, as in those cases the averment of an element of statutory liability was omitted from the claims filed.</p> <p>4. An amendment of a municipal claim by adding an averment of notice to the owner to do the work claimed for and his neglect thereof for thirty days, though allowable under § 9, act of April 21, 1858, P. L. 387, is not of absolute right, and in the absence of anything on the record to show the ground of the application or the reasons for its refusal, it will be presumed that tlxe action of the court, below was right.</p>