Harshman v. Dunbar Township

Citations

• 11 Pa. Super. 638
• 1899 Pa. Super. LEXIS 192

Syllabus

<p>Practice, Superior Court — Defective assignment — Appeal—Rules of court.</p> <p>An omnibus assignment of error containing twelve distinct extracts from the general charge will be disregarded as in violation of Rule 15.</p> <p>Public officers — Official act of supervisors — Repair of roads.</p> <p>While the law requires that any action of road supervisors requiring consultation and deliberation must be had at a regular meeting duly called for the purpose, it has always been held that the act of supervisors in making ordinary repairs to the road is not such an act as requires deliberation and consultation on the part of all of the supervisors.</p> <p>Road law — Repairs—Action of supervisors— Presumption of regularity.</p> <p>Plaintiff is entitled to recover for repairs to a road ordered upon default of the original contractor when employed to do the work by two road •commissioners, such authorization having been subsequently ratified by the third commissioner. The authority of the commissioners to order such repairs exists under the Act of May 18, 1871, P. L. 899, as amended by the Act of April 10, 1873, P. L. 761.</p> <p>The doctrine of omnia prtesumuntur rite esse acta applies, the township will not be permitted to say that their legally constituted officers omitted to comply with the legal requirement to give notice to the first contractor.</p> <p>The plaintiff had the right to presume that all preliminary acts necessary to enable the commissioners to enter into the contract had been performed by them. While he was bound to know the laws he was not bound to know the facts.</p>