Troop v. City of Pittsburgh
| Decision Date | 23 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | 58 |
| Citation | 254 Pa. 172,98 A. 1034 |
| Parties | Troop, Appellant, v. Pittsburgh |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 27, 1916 [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal, No. 58, Oct. T., 1915, by plaintiff, from decree of C.P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1915, No. 1927, dismissing bill in equity for an injunction, in case of Robert A. Troop v. City of Pittsburgh, a Municipal Corporation of Pennsylvania, and Joseph G. Armstrong, Mayor, and E. S. Morrow, City Controller of said city. Affirmed.
Bill in equity for an injunction.
SWEARINGEN, J., filed the following opinion:
The City of Pittsburgh enacted an ordinance, authorizing the increase of its indebtedness in the sum of $90,000.00. A taxpayer seeks by this bill to enjoin the issue of the bonds, provision for which is made in said ordinance. He alleges that the indebtedness of the city now exceeds two percentum of the assessed valuation. He reaches that conclusion by adding the net debt, created with, to the net debt, created without, the assent of the electors, in all the constituent units of Greater Pittsburgh, and he does this because the Acts of May 6, 1915, P.L. 260 and 272, provide that all the indebtedness of such units shall be paid by the consolidated city. The defendants deny that said acts require such indebtedness, as was created with the consent of the electors, to be included, when ascertaining the capacity of the city itself to increase its debts; and they aver that said acts are unconstitutional.
The case was put down upon bill and answer and was argued by counsel and submitted.
From the evidence we find the following findings of fact:
1. Robert A. Troop, the complainant, is a resident and a taxpayer of the City of Pittsburgh, and he is the owner of real estate therein. He files this bill in his own behalf and on behalf of such other taxpayers as may join in the litigation.
The City of Pittsburgh, one of the defendants, is a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and under the laws thereof, is a city of the second class. The other defendants are Joseph G. Armstrong, the mayor, and E. S. Morrow, the controller, of said city. The mayor and controller have the power and are charged with the duty of borrowing money on behalf of the city, within the limits prescribed by law, when they are duly authorized by the city so to do.
2. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Assembly approved February 7, 1906, P.L. 7, the City of Allegheny, then a city of the second class in this Commonwealth, was in the year 1907 annexed to and became part of the City of Pittsburgh.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Assembly approved April 28, 1903, P.L. 332, the Boroughs of Sheraden, West Liberty, Esplen, Beechview and Montooth were, prior to the first Monday of January, 1910, annexed to and became part of the City of Pittsburgh.
3. The last preceding assessed valuation of the taxable property of said City of Pittsburgh is $771,024,310.00. Two per centum of said valuation is $15,420,486.20, which sum is the maximum limit of the city's power to incur new indebtedness, or to increase its indebtedness, without the assent of the electors thereto duly obtained at a public election held for such purpose.
4. The City of Pittsburgh, as it existed prior to the said consolidation, and the City of Allegheny and the said several boroughs, as they existed prior to said consolidation, had each incurred large amounts of indebtedness without the assent of the electors of the respective units; and the City of Pittsburgh, as enlarged by said consolidation, has incurred a large amount of indebtedness without the assent of the electors thereof. All of said indebtedness is represented by certain bonds, issued pursuant to law. A separate sinking fund for each issue of bonds, as aforesaid, has been created and is provided in pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution and acts of assembly and of the ordinances authorizing the same. From time to time the Sinking Fund Commission of said city has purchased for the credit of the several sinking funds from moneys therein, not immediately required for the extinguishment of the indebtedness they are pledged to redeem, various bonds issued by said city.
5. The said former cities and boroughs and said consolidated city, called Greater Pittsburgh, have, heretofore and subsequent to January 1, 1874, incurred, without the assent of the electors thereof, an aggregate existing bonded indebtedness, now outstanding, as follows:
$12,132,550.00
Of said bonds there are now held in the said several sinking funds an aggregate of $1,770,750.00, and said several sinking funds have also on hand cash, aggregating $1,893,804.02, for the redemption of said bonds. Deducting the aggregate amount of the bonds and cash, so held in the sinking funds, from the total amount of the bonds aforesaid, there remain $8,467,995.98, as the net indebtedness of said city, created without the assent of the electors.
6. The said former City of Pittsburgh, said former City of Allegheny, and said former boroughs, prior to the aforesaid consolidation and subsequent to January 1, 1874, incurred with the assent of the respective electors thereof an aggregate existing bonded indebtedness, now outstanding, as follows:
$12,658,056.00
Of said bonds there are now held in said several sinking funds an aggregate of $3,302,356.00, and said sinking funds have also on hand cash, aggregating $870,236.94, for the redemption of said bonds. Deducting the aggregate amount of the bonds and cash, so held in the sinking funds, from the total amount of the bonds aforesaid, there remain $8,487,463.06, as the net indebtedness of said city, created with the assent of the electors.
7. The City of Pittsburgh, subsequent to January 1, 1874, has incurred an actual existing floating indebtedness, without the assent of the electors, which, less moneys on hand applicable to the reduction thereof, aggregates $4,407,535.87.
8. An ordinance entitled "An Ordinance authorizing and directing an increase of the indebtedness of the City of Pittsburgh in the sum of ninety thousand ($90,000.00) dollars, and providing for the issue and sale of bonds of said city in said amount, to provide funds for the construction of a refuse disposal plant, and providing for the redemption of said bonds and the payment of interest thereon," was duly enacted by the City of Pittsburgh, having been approved September 15, 1915, and the same is of record in ordinance book, vol. 27, page 102.
The indebtedness aforesaid is authorized to be incurred without the assent of the electors of said City of Pittsburgh.
9. The said Joseph G. Armstrong, Mayor, and E. S. Morrow, City Controller, of the City of Pittsburgh, purporting to act pursuant to said ordinance, are about to sell said bonds and intend to advertise for purchasers thereof.
The act approved February 7, 1906, P.L. 7, under which the Cities of Pittsburgh and Allegheny were consolidated, and the act approved April 28, 1903, P.L. 332, under which the various boroughs mentioned in Findings of Fact 2 were annexed to Pittsburgh, provide that each constitutent unit of the consolidated city shall pay its debt as the same existed at the time of said consolidation or annexation. This provision for payment was changed by the last legislature. The Act of May 6, 1915, P.L. 260, which is a supplement to said Act of 1906, provides as follows:
There is a general repealing section.
The Act of May 6, 1915, P.L. 272, which is a supplement to said Act of 1903, provides as follows:
There is a general repealing section.
The complainant's proposition is that, inasmuch as by virtue of said Acts of 1915 all the debts of the constitutent units of the Greater Pittsburgh are now debts of the greater city,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Consol. School Dist. No. 8 of Pemiscot County v. Smith
...73; State ex rel. v. Stauffer, 197 S.W. 248; State ex rel. v. Morgan, 268 Mo. 265; State ex inf. v. Jones, 266 Mo. 191; Troop v. Pittsburg, 254 Pa. 172, 98 A. 1034; Moore v. Pittsburg, 254 Pa. 185, 98 A. 1037; County v. Pittsburg, 226 Pa. 322, 75 A. 421; Minsinger v. Rau, 236 Pa. 327, 84 A.......
-
Kocsis v. Chicago Park Dist.
...cases, is lost and becomes absorbed into the new creation. True v. Davis, 133 Ill. 522, 22 N.E. 410, 411,6 L.R.A. 266;Troop v. City of Pittsburgh, 254 Pa. 172, 98 A. 1034;State v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 54, 137 So. 261. Where two or more municipal corporations are consolidated or the entir......
-
State v. City of Miami
... ... or concession revocable at the pleasure of the grantor ... Moore v. City of Pittsburgh, 254 Pa. 185, 98 A ... 1037, a case in point, supports this view and holds further ... that its constitutional provision protecting the ... City of Atlanta, 134 Ga. 532, 68 S.E ... 103; Toney v. Macon, 119 Ga. 83, text 85, 46 S.E ... 80; Laramie County v. Albany, supra; Troop v ... Pittsburgh, 254 Pa. 172, 98 A. 1034; Pittston ... Township School District v. Dupont Borough School ... District, 275 Pa. 183, 118 A. 308 ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Bell
...therefor. One of the best descriptions of a supplemental act is found in the opinion of the lower court, adopted by us in Troop v. Pittsburgh, 254 Pa. 172: "When we speak of a supplemental act, we something added to, something new, and in legislation we mean, by a supplement to an act alrea......