Philadelphia v. Scholl

Citations

• 68 Pa. Super. 404
• 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 137

Syllabus

<p>Road law — Paving—Street railways — Ordinance.</p> <p>A property owner against whom an original paving of a street has been charged, cannot defend on the ground that the city under an agreement with a street railway company had assumed the duty of such paving which had been previously imposed by ordinance on the company, where it appears that by ordinance a certain other street railway company to whose rights the previously mentioned company had succeeded, had been granted the right to use certain streets, including the street in question provided, it kept and maintained in good order such streets whether paved, macadamized or unimproved, and accept as binding all ordinances in force or hereafter to be passed relating to the conduct of street railroads, and a later ordinance, general in character, provided that street railways should repave, simultaneously -with the construction of their lines with improved pavements streets occupied by them, and this duty was subsequently assumed for a consideration by the city itself.</p> <p>In such a case the duty of maintaining existing railroads, streets, etc., whether paved, macadamized or unimproved, is a very different thing from an obligation to pave such highways with an “improved” pavement.</p> <p>Road law — Original paving — Telford pavement — Affidavit of defense.</p> <p>In an action against a property owner to recover the cost of an alleged original pavement of a street, an affidavit of defense is insufficient which avers that it had been paved with a Telford pavement without describing the character, or material of the pavement, had been paid for by the property owner at the time, without giving the name of the owner or date of payment, and without stating the municipal authority under which the paving was laid, or the acts by which the city subsequently ratified and adopted it as an original paving. ‘</p>