Skip to main content
· 7/13/1917

York City v. Holtzapple

Citations

  • 67 Pa. Super. 596
  • 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 464

Syllabus

<p>Road law — Municipal improvements — Paving—Original paving.</p> <p>Evidence that a municipality spread limestone ballast evenly over a roadway, converted into a hard surface by the passing traffic, and kept in repair by placing loose stones in the holes or ruts, is not such evidence of an intention by the municipality that the work should be an original paving, as will relieve an abutting owner from liability for future improvements.</p> <p>Describing the work as macadam by witnesses or - in reports, furnishes no information as to the manner of construction, and the materials entering into its construction. A witness cannot testify that certain methods of construction were emplos^ed to change ftp ordinary dirt street to a permanently improved highway. This calls for a conclusion. The “change” called for is expressive of the municipal intention, and such intention must be established by evidence apart from the work done.</p> <p>Work done on a roadway in 1874, will not be construed to have been adopted as a permanent -improvement by an ordinance passed in 1906, where there is nothing in the ordinance which indicates such intention. Such an ordinance is too remote from the time when the work was done to be any evidence of intention as applied to a particular street.</p> <p>The report of a borough engineer is not evidence of an intention to consider a macadamized pavement as a permanent improvement where it appears that the report was not approved by council, and that there was nothing in the report, even if it had b.een approved, .to show that council knew what kind of construction was embodied under the term “macadam,” and it also appears that the report was not made until twenty-three years after the work claimed as a permanent improvement had been done.</p> <p>On the trial of a scire facias sur municipal lien for paving, where the city offers the lien as prima facie evidence, and the lien recites .the acts and ordinances under which the work was done, the city is

Judges: Henderson, Kephart, Orlady, Porter, Trexler, Williams

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.