In re Grape Street
| Decision Date | 16 April 1883 |
| Parties | In re Grape Street. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ. CLARK, J., absent
CERTIORARI to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1883, No. 225.
Charles B. McMichael and Charles E. Morgan, Jr., and William Nelson West, city solicitor, for the plaintiff in error. — Art. 3, § 21 of the Constitution does not apply to legislation which regulates the assessment of damages for the lawful taking of land by corporations vested with the right of eminent domain. It applies only to suits within the purview of the general limitation: Act of March 27th 1713, 1 Smith Laws 76; 2 Debates Const. Con. 727-735. The requirement in section 7 of the Act of 1836, is not a mere limitation of a remedy, but a compliance therewith is a condition essential to the right to damages, and also to the jurisdiction of the court of Quarter Sessions: Del. R. R. v. Burson, 11 Smith 369; McClinton v. Pitts. &c. R. R. Co., 16 P. F. S. 404; In re Ridge Ave., 3 Out. 469; City of Phila. v. Wright, 4 Out. 235.
William Grew and J. D. Bennett, for defendants in error. — This question has already been settled by the case of Pusey v. City of Allegheny, 2 Out. 522.
Were this case to be determined under the road laws which were of force prior to the adoption of the constitution of 1874 we might be compelled, under the rulings found in the Ridge Avenue Case, 3 Out. 469, and the City v. Wright, 4 Out. 235, to reverse the court below. But it is not to be so determined, but under, and by, that Constitution. The plan changing the grade of Grape street was confirmed by the board of survey on the 19th of April 1875, and the proceedings to assess damages were commenced on the 2d of April 1881; this is within six years of the date of approval. Laying aside, therefore, the question as to whether the statute of limitations must be taken to run from the time when the work of grading was done, or from the time of the fixing of the grade by the city authorities, we proceed to the single inquiry of the effect of the new Constitution upon the limitation of one year, as prescribed in the general road law of the 13th of June 1836. The court below held, that that part of the act was abrogated by the 21st section of the third article of the Constitution, and notwithstanding the able argument of the counsel for the city, we do not see how that court could very well have come to any other conclusion.
The following is a transcript of that section: — ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zauflik v. Pennsbury Sch. Dist.
...any time limitations applicable to suits against corporations must be same as those against natural persons); In re Grape Street, 103 Pa. 121, 124 (1883) (“The design of this part of the Constitution is sufficiently obvious; it is to put the citizen and corporations on the same general plan......
-
In re Opening of Ruan Street
...from that applying elsewhere. The constitution repealed the one year limitation in the road law of June 13, 1836, P.L. 551: Grape Street, 103 Pa. 121; but did not thereby establish a six years' limit; there is no limit short of twenty-one years: Hannum v. West Chester, 63 Pa. 475. Some rece......
-
Ogden v. City of Philadelphia
...Bor. v. Rinek, 116 Pa. 1; Easton Bor. v. Walters, 18 W.N. 117; Twenty-eighth St., 102 Pa. 149. The limitation in force is six years: Grape St., 103 Pa. 121. James Alcorn (with him Mr. Howard A. Davis and Mr. Charles F. Warwick), for the appellee: 1. The plaintiffs were not the owners of the......
-
Brower v.City of Philadelphia
...117; Lewistown Road, 8 Pa. 109; Jarden v. Railroad Co., 3 Wh. 502. This period of one year was extended to six by the constitution: Grape St., 103 Pa. 121. In so far as Ridge Ave., 99 Pa. and Philadelphia v. Wright, 100 Pa. 235, hold that the limitation imposed by that section runs from the......