Case ID: pa_134/html/0207-01.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

PHILADELPHIA v. CHURCH OF ST. JAMES.
    APPEAL BY PLAINTIEE EBOM THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY.
    Argued April 3,1890
    Decided April 14, 1890.
    Churches, meeting houses, or other regular places of stated worship, with the grounds thereto annexed necessary for the occupancy and enjoyment of the same, and all burial-grounds not used or held for private or corporate profit, are exempt from assessment of the cost of laying a city water-pipe in the street in front thereof: See act of May 14, 1874, P. L. 158.
    Before Sterrett, Green, Clark, Williams and Mitchell, JJ.
    No. 175 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 27 December Term 1884, C. P. No. 1.
    On October 21, 1889, an amicable scire facias was entered in favor of the city of Philadelphia against the Church of St. James the Less, upon a municipal claim filed by the city on December 9, 1884, for $591.56, against property of the defendant church on Clearfield street, in the Twenty-eighth ward, being for work and materials furnished by said city in laying water-pipe on said street, in front of said lot.
    An affidavit of defence was filed on behalf of the defendant on November 23, 1889, which averred, in substance, that the defendant was duly incorporated on September 26, 1846, for the purpose of public worship; that the whole of the property described in the claim had been acquired for the purposes of the church, and had ever since been so used, to wit, for the regular maintenance of a church, a church school, and. churchyard ; that all of said lot was necessary for said purposes, and that no portion thereof was held for private or corporate profit.
    A rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence having been taken, on December 14, 1889, the rule was dispharged, without opinion filed. Thereupon the plaintiff took this appeal, assigning the refusal of judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence for error.
    
      Mr. JE. Spencer Miller, Assistant City Solicitor, (with him Mr. Charles F. Warwick, City Solicitor,) for the appellant.
    
      Mr. John Gr. Johnson, for the appellee, was not heard.
   Per Curiam;:

Assuming, as we must, in cases such as this, that the defendant’s averments are true, the court committed no error in refusing to enter judgment against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence.

Appeal dismissed, with costs to be paid by the appellant.