Warner v. Coatesville Borough

Citations

• 231 Pa. 141
• 80 A. 576
• 1911 Pa. LEXIS 805

Syllabus

<p>Municipalities — Boroughs—Street improvements — Method of procedure — Act of May 16, 1891, P. L. 76, Act of May 33, 1896, P. L. 106.</p> <p>1. Section 10 of the Act of May 16, 1891, P. L. 75, prescribing the method of procedure and the kind of notice necessary to effectuate the power given to municipalities by sec. 9 of the act to make street improvements on petition of abutting owners was not repealed by the Act of May 22, 1895, P. L. 106, giving municipal corporations power to make street improvements without any petition of property owners. The proviso to the act of 1895, relating to the passage of the ordinance, and to the kind of notice required, is restricted in its application to ordinances passed by borough councils providing for street improvements without a petition from abutting property owners. When the proceeding is instituted by the petition of abutting owners, sec. 10 of the act of 1891 applies.</p> <p>Boroughs — Councilmen—Ouster from office — Officers de facto.</p> <p>2. Where a borough councilman, ousted from office by decree of court because a stockholder in a corporation furnishing supplies to the borough, forthwith sells his stock, resigns his office, and is, on the evening of the same day, re-elected by council to fill the vacancy thus made, it having authority to fill vacancies in its body, and these actions are all taken bona fide, such person has a colorable title and becomes and continues a councilman de facto until a second ouster later decreed, and during such period the votes and acts of such councilman de facto are as forceful and binding, where public interests are concerned, as though de jure.</p> <p>Boroughs — Borough council — Burgess—Veto—Action on veto — Act of May 33,1893, P. L. 113.</p> <p>3. The Act of May 23, 1893, P. L. 113, does not require action to be taken by a borough council upon an ordinance vetoed by the burgess at any particular meeting or within any specified time; and such vetoed ordinance need not be reconsider