City of Pittsburg v. Maxwell

Citations

• 179 Pa. 553
• 36 A. 158
• 1897 Pa. LEXIS 689

Syllabus

<p>Road lato — Assessments—Appeals—Municipal liens.</p> <p>An owner of six lots on the same street in a cit3r, assessed for the cost of the same improvements, cannot by appealing from the assessment as to four of them suspend the city’s proceeding to collect the assessments on the two not appealed from until the event of the appeal: Pennsylvania Steel Co.’s Appeal, 161 Pa. 571, distinguished.</p> <p>Judgment — Review—Practice, 8. 0. — Roacl law.</p> <p>A judgment is not to be reversed at random, or for suspicion of error. Where it may be erroneous or not, according to the existence of circumstances which do not appear, every intendment of fact is to be made in support of it.</p> <p>Six lots owned by the same person were assessed for benefits, and the report of the viewers was confirmed nisi. The owner appealed from the assessment and demanded a jury trial. The city subsequently filed alien against two of the lots. On a rule to show cause why the lien should not be stricken off as premature, the city averred that no appeal was taken from the assessment against the two lots against which liens were filed. The court discharged the rule without giving any reasons for the order. The owner, who is the appellant, nowhere states, cither in the history of the case or the argument, that the appeal was as to all the lots. Held, that the Supreme Court would assume under tire circumstances that the grounds of the order were that the court below found as a fact from the record that no appeal was taken as to the two lots against which liens were filed, and therefore the order discharging the rule should be affirmed.</p>