Borough of New Brighton v. Biddell

• Decision Date: 06 January 1902
• Docket Number: 6
• Citation: 50 A. 989,201 Pa. 96
• Parties: New Brighton Borough v. Biddell et al., Appellants
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

50 A. 989

New Brighton Borough v. Biddell et al., Appellants

201 Pa. 96

No. 6

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 6, 1902

Argued: October 21, 1901

Appeal, No. 6, Oct. T., 1901, by defendants, from judgment of Superior Court, April T., 1900, No. 74, reversing judgment of C.P. Beaver Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 291, in case of the borough of Brighton v. Selina Biddell et al. Affirmed.

Appeal from judgment of Superior Court. See 14 Pa.Super. 207.

Error assigned was judgment of the Superior Court.

Frank H. Laird and Roger Cope, with them Agnew Hice, for appellant.

Frank E. Reader, for appellee.

Before McCOLLUM, C.J., MITCHELL, DEAN, FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT and POTTER, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

On this appeal the single question raised is as to the constitutionality of the act of March 31, 1897, and three reasons are assigned why it violates the constitution: first, it contravenes article 3, section 3, of the constitution; second, the act is in direct violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States and of section 9, article 1, of our constitution; and, third, it is in conflict with article 3, section 7, clause 1, of the constitution of this state. In neither of these respects does the act offend the constitution, and the judgment of the Superior Court, sustaining it, is affirmed.