Case ID: pa_201/html/0096-01.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

New Brighton Borough v. Biddell et al., Appellants.
    
      Constitutional law—Statutes—Title—Title of statute—Amendment of statute—Act of March 31, 1897, P. L. 15—Local legislation.
    
    The Act of March 31, 1897, P. L. 13, entitled “An act providing for the creation and regulation of municipal liens, and proceedings for the collection thereof, in the several boroughs of this state,” is not unconstitutional. It does not contravene article 3, section 3, of the constitution of Pennsylvania, relating to the titles of statutes; nor article 3, section 7, clause 1, of the constitution of Pennsylvania, relating to local and special legislation; nor article 1, section 9, of the constitution of Pennsylvania, and the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States. '
    
      Argued Oct. 21, 1901.
    Appeal, No. 6, Oct. T., 1901, by-defendants, from judgment of Superior Court, April T., 1900, No. 74, reversing judgment of C. P. Beaver Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 291, in case of tbe borough of Brighton v. Selina Biddell et al.
    Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Dean, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Appeal from judgment of Superior Court.
    See 14 Pa. Superior Ct. 207.
    
      Error assigned was judgment of the Superior Court.
    
      Frank II. Laird and Roger Cope, with them Agnew Hice, for appellant.
    
      Frank E. Reader, for appellee.
    January 6, 1902:
   Per Curiam,

On this appeal the single question raised is as to the constitutionality of the act of March 31, 1897, and three reasons are assigned why it violates the constitution: first, it contravenes article 3, section 3, of the constitution; second, the act is in direct violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States and of section 9, article 1, of our constitution ; and, third, it is in conflict with article 3, section 7, clause 1, of the constitution of this state. In neither of these respects does the act offend the constitution, and the judgment of the Superior Court, sustaining it, is affirmed.