In re Incorporation of Castle Shannon

Citations

• 75 Pa. Super. 162
• 1920 Pa. Super. LEXIS 240

Syllabus

<p>Boroughs — Incorporation—Exceptions—■Appeals — Act of May lb, 1915, P. L. 81% (Borough Code).</p> <p>A petition for the incorporation of a borough, averring essential facts, including the sworn statement that it was signed by the requisite number of freeholders residing within the limits of the proposed borough is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.</p> <p>A contention that the court cannot exclude certain farm lands from the limits of a proposed borough is without merit, where exceptions have been filed, averring that the land in question was used exclusively for farming purposes and this averment is admitted by all parties in interest. This is an allegation of fact and it is entirely competent for those petitioning for the incorporation of the borough to admit the fact and agree that the land should be excluded. The court having jurisdiction to exclude farm land, the manner in which this jurisdiction is exercised is a matter of detail and an error in such matter does not necessarily render the decree invalid. It is not jurisdictional in its nature, even though the parties whose land was improperly excluded has the right to complain.</p> <p>Under the provisions of chapter 2, article I, section 4, of the Act of May 4, 1915, P. L. 312, an advertisement relative to the incorporation of a borough, must be published in a newspaper for a period of not less than 30 days immediately before the next regular term for which it is possible to give the notice by the act required. It was the intention of the act that the decree should be entered for the term during which notice was given, but the statute expressly provides: “If the court shall deem further investigation necessary they may make such order thereon as to right and justice shall appertain.” The court may therefore take such time as in its discretion seems necessary to properly dispose of the proceeding. In accordance with such provisions it was not error for the court to direct on the 2d day of Oc