Easton City v. Hughes

Citations

• 66 Pa. Super. 589
• 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 323

Syllabus

<p>Road law — Original paving of street — Municipal intention— Adoption of pavement — Macadamized pavement.</p> <p>The first paving, which exempts abutting property owners from any liability for any subsequent improvement is one that is put down originally, or adopted or acquiesced in subsequently by the municipal authority for the purpose and with the. intent of changing an ordinary road into a street. Two elements are necessary to evidence this fact; the character of the construction and the intenti'on of the municipality to convert, a common road-into a permanently improved street. 'The controlling consideration, however, is affirmative municipal intention. ,</p> <p>While due effect must be given to the character of the work done in determining municipal intention, when that work is macadamizing, without other ample evidence, it will not be sufficient to show municipal intention. There must be additional evidence of this fact.</p> <p>Where a municipal ordinance provided for an appropriation for ordinary repairs to streets, and a portion of a street particularly mentioned in the ordinance was macadamized, and about a year afterwards an ordinance was passed appropriating money to be used for permanent improvements including the macadamizing of the street in question, the latter ordinance together with evidence as to the work done on the street, is sufficient to sustain a finding of an adoption of the macadamizing done under the first ordinance as a permanent improvement.</p> <p>Where such evidence is excluded on the objection of the city, and the court erroneously charges that the jury may find for the defendant on certain other evidence, and it appears that other cases depend on the result of the appeal, the appellate court will reverse the judgment but at the cost of the city appellant.</p>