Philadelphia v. Hestonville & Fairmount Railroad

Citations

• 203 Pa. 38
• 52 A. 184
• 1902 Pa. LEXIS 648

Syllabus

<p>Street railways — Paving streets — Amendment—Statute of limitations— Notice.</p> <p>Where a city brings a suit against a street railway company to recover the cost of paving streets occupied by the tracks of the company, and it appears in the course of the suit that the company sued was under no charter, contractual or statutory obligation to pay the cost of paving the streets, the city cannot after the statute of limitations has run against its claim, be permitted to amend its statement so as to aver that the company had by lease or merger acquired the franchises and assumed the burden of another railway company, and that by reason of such assumption of obligation it was liable for the paving. Such an averment introduces an entirely new cause of action.</p> <p>Where the ordinances of a city provide that street railways shall pave or repave the highways “when requested so to do by the chief commissioner of highways” or “ after notice has been given to said company by the chief commissioner of highways.” and that if the companies refuse or neglect to do the work, the city may do it at their cost, the city cannot recover the cost of paving or repaving without showing that a proper notice and request had been given to the company.</p>