Skip to main content
· 5/23/1914

Thiel v. Philadelphia

Citations

  • 245 Pa. 406
  • 91 A. 490
  • 1914 Pa. LEXIS 888

Syllabus

<p>Statutes — Construction—Repealing statutes — Statutes not self-executing — Act of July 22, 1918, P. L. 879 — Repealing clause — ■ Time of talcing effect.</p> <p>1. Where the provisions of a revising statute are to take effect at a future period, or upon the happening of a certain contingency, or the doing of certain acts, and the statute contains a clause repealing former laws on the same subject, the repealing clause does not take effect until the provisions of the repealing act go into operation.</p> <p>2. The Act of July 22, 1913, P. L. 879, creating a Division of Housing and Sanitation in the Department of Public Health and Charities, in cities of the first class, did not go into operation automatically, but required definite action upon the part of the city councils to make it effective; and until such action by councils, the repealing clause of the act could not operate to repeal former legislation inconsistent therewith.</p> <p>3. The words “there shall be” used in connection with the organization of a Division of Housing and Sanitation, in the Act of July 22, 1913, P. L. 879, are equivalent to “there shall be established.”</p> <p>Municipalities — Cities of the first class — Ordinances—Construction.</p> <p>4. By legislation enacted prior to the Act of July 22,1913, P. L. 879, which provided for the creation of a Division of Housing and Sanitation in the Department of Public Health and Charities in cities of the first class, the Department of Public Health and Charities had been vested with the power to establish a system of inspection of, and supervision over, drainage, and to appoint inspectors at salaries to be fixed by councils, and to employ tenement house inspectors. An ordinance of the City of Philadelphia, approved December 31, 1913, made an appropriation for sanitary inspection, fixed the numbers of inspectors and other employees of that department, and their salaries, but contained nothing which would show any indication of an intention to fix sal

Judges: Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Potter

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.