Case ID: pa_148/html/0120-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

City of Chester v. Phila., Reading & Pottsville Telegraph Co., Appellant.
    
      Telegraph poles — License fees.
    
    See preceding case.
    Argued Feb. 11, 1892.
    Appeal, No. 250, Jan. T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., for plaintiff, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell and Heylrick, JJ.
    Assumpsit to recover license fees for maintenance of telegraph poles.
    The statement filed was to recover license fees of $1 per pole per annum imposed by city ordinance. Defendant’s affidavit of defence was to the effect that: (1) plaintiff had no authority in law to impose such tax ; (2) the telegraph poles erected and maintained by the defendant in the city of Chester were not the subjects of taxation for revenue purposes by the plaintiff ; (3) that these taxes were imposed not for police, but for revenue purposes, the city not having expended any money whatever, nor by its officers directed any attention whatever to the supervision, control or police surveillance of the poles of the defendant.
    The court, Clayton, P. J., entered judgment for the plaintiff, holding that “ the right of the city to charge a reasonable license fee for the privilege of obstructing the public streets and for necessary police supervision and public protection, has been too well settled to require further notice. It is not a tax for revenue, but a police charge for the necessary liability of the city to supervise the use of its streets. The sum charged is not unreasonable, and the defendant must pay the license fee or remove the poles.”
    Judgment for plaintiff $421.88, with costs. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
    
      W. I. Sehaffer, W. B. Broomall with him, for appellant.
    
      Orlando Harvey, for appellee.
    
      March 28, 1892:
   Per Curiam,

This case is ruled by Telegraph Co. v. The city of Philadelphia, 22 W. N. C. 39, and City of Allentown v. Western Union Telegraph Co., decided herewith.

Judgment affirmed.