County of Erie v. Commonwealth
Citations
- 127 Pa. 197
- 17 A. 905
- 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1101
Syllabus
<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. The duty to keep a public highway in repair, devolves, at common law, upon the township upon which rests the duty of opening and making it; but where the expense of carrying the highway across a river or other considerable stream of water is greater than the township should bear, the act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 555, provides that the county may build the bridge and regulates the manner in which it may be done.</p> <p>2. But, except in counties where the special act of April 13, 1843, P. L. 221, is in force, the law does not make provision for the care of such bridge alter its erection by the county; that duty remains upon the township, and the completed bridge, when opened for public travel, becomes a part of the public highway and passes as such under the care of the township officers: Commonwealth v. Monroe Co., 2 W. & S. 495, followed; Howe v. Crawford Co., 47 Pa. 361, disapproved.</p> <p>(a) Road commissioners of a township in Erie county presented a petition setting forth the erection of a county bridge in 1836 ; that it had been partially destroyed by floods, freshets and ice, and that the county commissioners, although requested so to do, had refused to rebuild and reconstruct it; praying for a mandamus, etc.</p> <p>3. The act of April 13, 1843, P. L. 221, was not in force in Erie county, and the proceeding, upon the facts of the case, was not under the act of May 5, 1876, P. L. 112, providing that when any county bridge should be destroyed or partially destroyed or swept away by floods, etc., it should be rebuilt by the county, subject to view and inspection as in case of an original erection.</p> <p>4. As it was not alleged that the bridge had been blown down or swept away by floods, or destroyed by casualty, the question presented was over the duty to make repairs under the act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 555, and as that duty rested upon the township and not upon the county, the petition should be dismissed.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- upholding revocation of liquor license under “lewd, immoral or improper” language where performances included “topless dancing girls who wore panties or G-strings which permitted one to see the pubic area”
- “If the appellant [cannot] serve food [it is] in violation of section 406(a) of the [Liquor] Code.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.