Skip to main content
· 5/21/1894

Philadelphia ex rel. Nestor v. Spring Garden Farmers' Market Co.

Citations

  • 161 Pa. 522
  • 29 A. 286
  • 1894 Pa. LEXIS 728

Syllabus

<p>Municipalities — Streets—Paving—Street railways.</p> <p>The act of April 8, 1864, P. L. 297, incorporating the Union Passenger Railway Company, and requiring that “ the company in constructing their road shall conform to the surveys and grades now established, or hereafter to be established,” and requiring that the company should “be at the entire cost and expense of paving, repahyng and repaving that may be necessary upon any street where the track of said company may be laid,” imposes the obligation of original paving upon the company, and relieves the abutting landowner therefrom.</p> <p>The liability to pay for the original paving of a street is purely of statutory origin, and it cannot be imposed without legislative authority, and, under the constitution, not even by legislature, except where there is some special benefit to the property owner. The legislature which imposes such a liability may also relieve from it.</p> <p>Where the legislature has imposed upon a street railway company the obligation of paying for the original paving of a street, an abutting landowner can set up such legislative action as a defence to a suit brought by the city against himself to r’ecover the cost of the original paving.</p> <p>Not decided what might be the result, if, on default of the railway company to do the work, the city should do it and then be unable to collect the cost from the railway company.</p> <p>Constitution — Statutes—Title of act. — Act of March 16, 1865'.</p> <p>The act of March 16, 1865, P. L. 394, entitled: “A supplement to an act, entitled ‘ An act to incorporate the Union Passenger Railway Company,’ approved April 8, 1864, authorizing said company to extend their track,” and providing also that the company “ shall not be chargeable with the cost or obliged to pay the cost of paving any street which has never been previously paved,” violates the constitutional requirement, that each act shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in t

Judges: Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.