McKeown's Petition
| Decision Date | 18 July 1912 |
| Docket Number | 28-1912 |
| Citation | 51 Pa.Super. 277 |
| Parties | McKeown's Petition |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued March 5, 1911
Appeal by P. W. McKeown, from order of Q. S. Luzerne Co., Nov Sessions, 1911, No. 300, directing county commissioners to enter into a road contract.
Petition to compel township commissioners to enter into a road contract.
On February 24, 1911, the commissioners of Luzerne county proclaimed Hanover township a township of the first class. At the municipal election in November thereafter the qualified electors of Hanover township elected six township commissioners, known as the board of commissioners of Hanover township. Shortly thereafter notice was served by said P. W McKeown, the petitioner in this proceeding, upon the three acting supervisors -- with whom he had a contract for the fiscal year -- the three acting auditors and the six commissioners elect, that on November 20, 1911, he would present his petition and bond, as required by the provisions of the act of assembly approved June 12, 1893, P. L. 451, to the court of quarter sessions of Luzerne county, requesting an order directing the township commissioners elect in accordance with the provisions of the Act of assembly approved May 24, 1901, P. L. 294, to enter into a contract with him for the " opening, making, repairing and amending the public roads and bridges of the township" for their fiscal year. The township commissioners elect resisted the application for the order, contending, that the Act of May 24, 1901, P. L. 294, was unconstitutional and void, and therefore inoperative. On December 19, 1911, the court made the order prayed for
Error assigned was the order of the court.
Affirmed.
T. F. McLaughlin, for appellants. -- The title of the act of 1901, is insufficient: Com. v. Samuels, 163 Pa. 283; Beckert v. Allegheny, 85 Pa. 191; Mt. Joy Boro. v. Lancaster, etc., Turnpike Co., 182 Pa. 581; Dorsey's App., 72 Pa. 192; Ruth's App., 10 W.N.C. 498; Perkins v. Philadelphia, 156 Pa. 554; Otto Township Road, 2 Pa.Super. 20; Phoenixville Road, 109 Pa. 44; Stegmaier v. Jones, 203 Pa. 47; Provident Life & Trust Co. v. Hammond, 230 Pa. 407; Titusville Iron Works v. Keystone Oil Co., 122 Pa. 627; Barrett's App., 116 Pa. 486; Emsworth Borough, 5 Pa.Super. 29
The said act of assembly offends against sec. 20 of art. III of the constitution: Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.'s Petition, 200 Pa. 352; Travis v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co., 33 Pa.Super. 203; Com. v. Smith, 9 Pa. Dist. 350; Keeler v. Westgate, 10 Pa. Dist. 240; Porter v. Shields, 200 Pa. 241.
John D. Farnham, with him Andrew H. McClintock, for appellee. -- The title of the act of 1901, is sufficient: Dickinson Twp. Road, 23 Pa.Super. 34.
When there is an established system of procedure in certain cases, whether it be by common law or statute or joint operation of both, a new act applying such system to a new class of cases, by general reference to it, is not a violation of sec. 6 of art. III, although it may operate to some extent as an extension of a previous statute: Greenfield Avenue, 191 Pa. 290; New Brighton Borough v. Biddell, 201 Pa. 96; Smith Woolen Machinery Co. v. Browne, 206 Pa. 543; Krause v. Pa. R. R. Co., 4 Pa.C.C. 60; s. c., 19 Phila. 436; Honeywell v. Tonery, 5 Kulp, 360.
Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Orlady, Head and Porter, JJ.
Under the act of June 12, 1893, any one or more of the taxpayers of any township or road district could acquire the right to make at his or their own expense the roads of the township or district with the approval of the court of quarter sessions and in accordance with the procedure in the act prescribed. The validity of this statute is not attacked and since the decision in Lehigh Valley Coal Co.'s Appeal, 164 Pa. 44, its constitutionality cannot be considered doubtful. At the time this act was passed the townships of the state had not been classified and the act therefore applied to all of them. The Act of April 28, 1899, P. L. 104, divided townships into two classes, and it was held in Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co's. Petition, 200 Pa. 352, that the latter act repealed the act of 1893 as to townships of the first class. The legislature then adopted the Act of May 24, 1901, P. L. 294, applying the provisions of the act of 1893 to townships of the first class. The proceeding before us is based on the act of 1901. The appellant contends that this statute is unconstitutional and that there is, therefore, no authority in law for the order appealed from. This is the only question to be considered, it being conceded by the appellant that if the act of 1901 is constitutional that is the end of the case. Three objections are made to its constitutionality: (1) it violates sec. 3 of art. III of the constitution which declares that no bill shall be passed containing more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in the title; (2) it is forbidden by sec. 3 of art. III which provides that no law shall be revived, amended or the provisions thereof extended or conferred by reference to its title only, etc.; (3) it is contrary to sec. 20 of art. III which prohibits the general assembly from delegating to any special commission, private corporation or association, any power to make, supervise or interfere with any municipal improvement, money, property or effects, whether held in trust or otherwise, or to levy taxes, or perform any municipal function whatever. The proceeding was on the petition of P. W. McKeown, a property owner and taxpayer in the township of Hanover in Luzerne county, and the order appealed from was made in strict conformity to the provisions of the statute. The act in question is an amendment of the act of April 28, 1899, and the two statutes are to be considered together. The particular respects in which it is alleged the title is defective and insufficient are: (a) that it does not give notice that the provisions of the act of June 12, 1893, are extended to townships of the first class nor does it give notice of the subject of the proviso; (b) it gives no notice by the word " authorizing" or by any other word in the title that the court of quarter sessions may by its order compel and require the township commissioners to execute a contract such as is required by the act of June 12, 1893; (c) it gives no notice when the amended act of assembly was approved; (d) it gives no notice that only the first subdivision of sec. 7 of the amended act is thereby to be amended.
With reference to the first of these propositions it may be said that it was not necessary to incorporate in the title a reference to the act of 1893. All that is contemplated in the statute is sufficiently indicated in the title. The method by which the result is to be worked out is fully set forth in the body of the act, but it has never been held that the details of the statute must appear in the title. The distinguishing subject is the authorization of the township commissioners to enter into contracts with taxpayers for the making, amending and repairing of public highways and bridges of the township, and as it appears in the title to be an amendment the reader is put on notice of the act to which the amendment applies. The title shows that the subject to be legislated about is the same as that provided for by the act of 1893. It would be difficult to more clearly comply with the mandate of the constitution in this respect without unduly amplifying the title.
A critical construction of the word " authorized" is resorted to to support...
To continue reading
Request your trial