Mt. Pleasant Bor. v. Balt. & O. R.

Citations

• 138 Pa. 365
• 20 A. 1052
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1117

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. A municipal claim for the paying of a sidewalk along the roadbed of a railroad company cannot be sustained, inasmuch as the paving cannot possibly confer a special benefit upon the property known as the right of way, and hence the whole theory which justifies such charge fails in this instance.*</p> <p>2. This reason does not apply, however, to a railroad passenger station, nor to ground used as a freight station or a lumber yard; and, in the exercise of police powers conferred upon boroughs by the act of April 3, 1851, P. L. 320, ground used for such purposes and not forming part of the roadbed may be subjected to such charge.</p> <p>3. A demand upon the property-owner that he construct the sidewalk, and the refusal or neglect by him so to do, are a prerequisite to the acquisition of a lien by the borough for the cost of a sidewalk constructed by it, but it is unnecessary to aver such demand and refusal in the claim filed: Connellsville Bor. v. Gilmore, lo W. N. 343, distinguished.</p> <p>4. An application by the borough, however, for leave to amend such a claim by introducing an averment that such demand was made, and that the pavement was laid by the borough after the neglect of the property-owner to lay it within the time prescribed by the ordinance, should be granted: Philadelphia v. Stevenson, 132 Pa. 103.</p> <p>5. The decisions upon questions arising out of street improvements in the city of Philadelphia, have little application to eases arising under the borough act of April 8,1851, P. L. 320, as that city has a complete system of its own, and, as was said in Philadelphia v. Richards, 124 Pa. 310, its authority in such matters is general and unlimited: Per PaxsoN, C. J.</p>