McHale v. Easton & Bethlehem Transit Co.

Citations

• 169 Pa. 416
• 37 W.N.C. 14
• 32 A. 461
• 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1108

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Municipalities — Change of grade — Equity—Injunction.</p> <p>A municipality has the exclusive right to establish the grades of streets, and a court of equity has no power by mandatory injunction to compel a city to restore a grade which has been changed. If the owner of abutting property has been injured, his remedy is in a court of law.</p> <p>A bill in equity against a street railway company and a municipality to compel the restoration of the grade of a street alleged to have been changed in the construction of a railway, cannot be sustained against the railway company where there is no allegation in the bill that the change was made by the company without the consent of the municipality.</p> <p>Street railways — Municipal consent — Occupation of streets — Ordinances —Act of June 14, 1887.</p> <p>It seems that in cities of the third class the consent of the municipality to the use of a street by a street railway company need not be “ expressed by general ordinance duly passed and approved,” as required by the act of June 14, 1887, sec. 32, P. L. 394, in the case of cities of the second class.</p>