Commonwealth v. Jackson
Citations
- 34 Pa. Super. 178
- 1907 Pa. Super. LEXIS 101
Syllabus
<p>Boroughs — Ordinances—Police power — Taxation—Distributing advertisements.</p> <p>A borough has no power to enact an ordinance providing “that no person shall distribute any handbills or other advertising matter in the borough without having previously procured a license so to do from the chief of police of said borough, which license shall be issued to the party applying for the same on the payment of $5.00 per day.” The ordinance is invalid because, first, it is an attempt to impose an unreasonable annual tax, under the guise of a police regulation, and, second, it is not a proper exercise of the police power, because it prohibits all distribution of advertisements, irrespective of their subject-matter, and manner of distribution.</p>
Judges: Beaver, Head, Henderson, Morrison, Rice
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Philadelphia v. BrabenderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1902-02-24· cited 38×
- Kittanning Borough v. Kittanning Consolidated Natural Gas Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1904-10-17· cited 26×
- Kneedler v. Borough of NorristownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1882-05-29· cited 23×
- Commissioners v. Northern Liberties Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1849-12-15· cited 14×
- Philadelphia v. BrabenderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1901-07-25· cited 11×
- Braddock Borough v. Allegheny County Telephone Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1904-07-28· cited 8×
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.