In re Widening of Chestnut Street

• Decision Date: 11 March 1878
• Citation: 86 Pa. 84
• Parties: In re Widening of Chestnut Street.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

86 Pa. 84

In re Widening of Chestnut Street.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 11, 1878.

March 11, 1878.

January 11th 1878.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, WOODWARD and TRUNKEY, JJ.

Certiorari to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1877, No. 115 A. A. Hirst, M. Arnold, and J. G. Rosengarten, for plaintiffs in error.—There is no authority of law to widen the streets of Philadelphia by means of a jury of view. Two modes only are provided for the purpose of widening streets in the city. One is by direction of the City Councils, on the petition of a majority of the owners of land fronting on the street proposed to be widened (Act of April 27th 1869, sect. 1, Bright. Purd. 1287, pl. 123, and Act of March 24th 1870, Pamph. L. 547), and the other is by the Board of Surveyors of said city, upon the petition of the majority of such owners (Act of June 6th 1871, sect. 4, Pamph. L. 1354). Besides, if such power of widening by jury of view does exist, it cannot be used to make a street more than fifty feet wide (Act of June 13th 1836, sect. 5, Bright. Purd. 1273, pl. 5). As Chestnut street is now made fifty-five feet wide by an Act of April 28th 1870, Pamph. L. 1291, the limit to which a road jury may go is already passed: In re Jackson Street, 2 Norris 328.

No paper-book nor argument, contra.

Mr. Justice MERCUR delivered the opinion of the court, March 11th 1878.

This was a proceeding to widen Chestnut street, between Fifteenth and Sixteenth streets. It was commenced by petition of the owners of real estate upon the south side of the street, between the points named, to the Court of Quarter Sessions of the county of Philadelphia. The petition was presented on the 2d of October 1875, and the jurors were appointed on the same day.

The main question presented by the assignments of error is whether the Quarter Sessions then had jurisdiction.

The legislation relating to highways in Pennsylvania shows a diversity of sentiment as to what jurisdiction should be given to the Courts of Quarter Sessions. Thus the Act of 12 William III., ch. 55, declared that all the king's highways or public roads within this province, or counties annexed, should be laid out by order of the governor and council for the time being; but the justices of the county courts were authorized to lay out for housekeepers roads (private) leading from their premises to public roads: Bradford's Laws of Pennsylvania, page 13.

The Act of 6th April 1802, Pamph. L. 178, authorized the justices of the Court of Quarter Sessions of each county in the Commonwealth, on petition, to order view and lay out public and private roads. This act, however, expressly declared that it should not interfere with any special provision theretofore made, respecting the county of Philadelphia; and it further excepted from its repealing clause, roads, lanes, alleys, and bridges in the city of Philadelphia, and in other corporate towns.

The Act of 22d March 1813, Pamph. L. 136, incorporating the district of Spring Garden, provided for the election of commissioners, who were authorized to appoint surveyors to survey and lay out such streets, roads, lanes, courts and alleys, as were deemed necessary for a regular and convenient town plan. The surveyors were to return to the commissioners two copies of the drafts and plans, one of which was to be filed in the office of the clerk of the Court of Quarter Sessions. The court was then empowered to determine whether any, and what, alteration should be made therein, and the time when the same should be opened.

The 76th sect. of the Act of 13th June 1836, Pamph. L. 566, declared the proceedings to obtain the laying out or widening of a street, road or alley, within the city and county of Philadelphia, should be by petition presented to the Court of Quarter Sessions at least thirty days before the commencement of each term of said court, and thereupon the court should direct a venire to issue, directing the sheriff to return a panel of forty-eight freeholders to the next term, to act as viewers in all cases of said applications, from which panel, on the return-day of the venire, the court should direct six names to be drawn as viewers, to act in each case.

The 1st sect. of the Act of 16th March 1866, 2 Purd. Dig. 1286, pl. 111, declared in all cases relating to the opening of streets upon the plans of...