Philadelphia v. Stevenson

Citations

• 132 Pa. 103
• 19 A. 70
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 775

Syllabus

<p>(a) A municipal claim, for paving and repairing a sidewalk and re-setting the curb, set forth that it was filed “ agreeably to the several acts of assembly relating thereto,” and that the work was done by the chief commissioner of highways of the city of Philadelphia, in pursuance of an ordinance of date June 7, 1882 :</p> <p>1. It was not essential to the validity of the lien that the statutes referred to or the requirements thereof should be set out in the claim; and, on a motion to strike off, it was sufficient to exhibit the statute authorizing the filing of the claim and show that the record was in compliance with its provisions.</p> <p>2. So, the ordinances of councils, unless they have been formally brought upon the record by the pleadings, are evidence, merely, admissible at the trial to establish or defeat the claim, but not to be considered upon a motion to strike the claim from the record: Philadelphia v. Richards, 124 Pa. 303.</p> <p>(&) An amendment of the claim was applied for, so as to aver that the defendants had failed to perform the work after thirty days notice to do so, and that after such default the work was done by the city pursuant to the alleged terms of the ordinance referred to in the claim:</p> <p>3. As the amendment affected only the form of the pleadings, gave no advantage to the city, and was of no consequence unless proof was given in support of the matter proposed to be inserted, it was error to refuse the amendment: Connellsvillo Bor. v. Gilmore, 15 W. N. 343; Philadelphia v. Dungan, 124 Pa. 52, distinguished.</p>