Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-11-05
SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS.
That Suit of Mr.. BradIey's for Costs fol-
Filing Tax Liens Heard

That Suit of Mr.. BradIey's for Costs for
Filing Tax Liens Heard.
In the Supreme Court, yesterday, argument
was heard in the case of John Bradley, protho-
notary, against the city of Pittsburg. The suit
is an important one, and involves considerable
sum of money in the shape of costs for filing
tax liens. The suit is a test case over the
Prothonotary and Sheriffs costs for the filing
and entering judgment against John Morrow,
of the Sixth ward, for delinquent taxes The
costs amounted to IS. and were never paid The
custom has been that when lien was fled in
the ProthonoUary's Office and no further action
taken, the costs were allowed to stand with the
Judgment, to be collected from the property
owner with the amount of taxes. if they are
ever received. The city officials take the posi-
tion that the costs are not to be paid until the
execution is levied and the money paid. Pro
thonotary Bradley holds that as the greater
amount of liens are allowed to simply remain
on file, and the money never collected, the
county should be paid for its services by the
plaintiff.
IN FAVOR OF THE CITY.
The lower court held that whether or not the
city can ever be compelled to pay the fees and
costs in cases of liens fled for taxes, need not
be decided. In this case the lien is in full force
and under the act of Assembly there is no liza
biIty to pay at present Judgment was given
for the city, and the Prothonotary appealed
An argument was heard in the case OF
Samuel P. Shriver and James H. Stokes
against d. r Mcintyre and Thomas Brown
appealed BY the plaintiffs on an error to Com
mon Pleas No. i The suit was to recover on a
bond given by Mcintyre and Brown, agreeing
to pay any Judgment that might be given
against Shriver and Stokes, in suit against
them to recover an interest in the business of
Nellis, Shriver & Co., which WAS being wound
up
The divorce case of Elizabeth B. Mason
against John Mason, appealed by Mrs. Mason
from Common Pleas No. l, was argued A
divorce had been refused because there
husband was frequently drunk and on one or
two occasions used threats, yet there was not
sufficient indignities to her person to warrant a
divorce.
An argument was heard in the case of Mary
E. Gormiy against W. NJ. Gormly, Jr., and
Others appealed by the plaintiff from Common
Pleas No. !. The suit is a controversy over the
estate of the late James GOrmly.
Arguments were heard in the cases Of Mary
i. Osbon and Mamie r. Collins against the
CHARTERS Valley Gas COMPANY, appealed by
the plaintiffs from Common Pleas No. 2 The
plaintiffs are the owners of lots in Glenfeld and
sued for damages for the destruction of springs
on the property which were spoiled by salt
water coming from wells bored by the gas COM
pany.
The appeal of Matilda G. MacConnell from
Common Pleas No. 2 in the suit brought against
her by the city of Pittsburg, was argued. The
case was a lien filed by the city against Mrs
MaeConnell for the assessment for grading and
paving Wlnbiddle avenue, Twentieth ward
Mrs. MacConnel resisted payment on the
ground that the work was bad, and that the
contract was not let to the lowest and best
bidder. She claimed that there we're no speci-