Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-10-16
FIGHTING THE CITY.
Supreme Court Suits in Which the
Municipality Is Defendant.
ATTACKING THE CURATIVE ACTS,
Property Holders Are Dissatisfied With
Their Execution.
STREET CONTRACTORS WANT INTEREST

City Attorney Moreland was yesterday
served with papers in all the cases which
i'll come before the Supreme Court at its
present sitting in which the city is inter.
ested. The cases are all we'll up in the
calendar and some of them are likely to be
reached during the present week. There
are nine cases altogether, the city appear
ing as plaintiff in seven, while she is inter-
ested In the other two because they insure
an attack on existing city legislation.
Six of the suits are aimed at the curative
acts passed by the last Legislature to relieve
the municipality from paying for improve
ments made under the street laws of 1887
and 1889. declared null and void by the Su-
preme Court The Mt Washington resi-
dents who have fought so vigorously to
avoid paying for their street Improvements
are the plaintiffs in five cases. They are the
property holders on Boggs avenue, Shiloh,
De Sofa, Omega and Tioga streets Several
residents of Anderson avenue, Shadyside,
have similar suits .
A Definition of Practice Wanted.
The appeal in each case is the same. The
property holders desire the court to define
the practice under the curative law. As 1t
stands the Board of Viewers report to the
court. Their report lies 20 days subject to
exceptions. When the 20 days have ex-
pired the court has power to confirm,
modify, quash or send the report to new
| board for correction. The plaintiffs claim
the right to ignore the viewers entirely
until their report has been submitted to the
, court.
been decided that every person having
claims for damages or objection to assess
ments must appear before the Board
| of Viewers, submit proof of the
| claims, file exceptions before the board and
offer to 60 into hearing on them. It has
| also been decided in the lower courts that
when they go into court appellants must be
able to show on the face of their exceptions
some indication of Injustice. the court hold
ing that it will treat the report of the view
fairness, especially as the viewers are not
only under cath, but to make a personal in
spection of the affected property and to
hear all parties in interest, including a
hearing on any exceptions filed before them
What the Plaintiffs Would Gain.
The only gain to the plaintiffs in these
cases, should they get favorable decision,
will be an opportunity to delay the pay
menta of their assessments. They would
have an opportunity to secure the appoint
ment of a commissioner to take testimony
and drag the matter along for six months or
year. The City Attorney expects the
lower courts to be affirmed, however, as if
they are reversed the Board of
Viewers will be practically declared
useless and the assessments will be made by
the court. With the exception of five or
six improvements now in the Common Pleas
Courts and awaiting jury trials on the ques-
tion of damages, all the Improvements
affected by the curative act are settled,
barring those on which the appeals are
taken. The last confrmations by the court
were Center avenue, Frankstown avenue
and Roup street improvements, on which
tomorrow the City Treasurer will begin
collections.
Another case against the city is that of
Booth & Finn for interest on their money
spent in grading and paving South Twenty
eighth street. The lower court decided
that according to their contract Booth &
Finn could not collect interest until two
years after the work was completed
Demand for Interest.
The firm demands interest from the time |
the work was finished. Since this suit was |
brought Councils passed an ordinance |
allowing contractors per cent from the |
time OF completion of work. If the appeal |
is allowed number of other contracts will |
be affected.
City officials take deep interest in the
case of James Mckay versus Rose Trainor,
which involves the validity OF the registry |
act of 1871. The act requires all parties
owning property in the city to have their
deeds registered in the City Engineers
office. Robert A. Dixon was the registered
owner of a lot in the Thirteenth ward,
which was sold by the Sheriff for taxes, in
the name of Robert and Thomas C.
Dixon, and was bought in by
Mckay. Robert A. Dixon, being the
registered owner previously, was not
notified of the sale and contends that under
the act of 1871 he is not divested of his title
to the property. The act of 1871 saws no
property can be sold for taxes or municipal
liens, except in the name of the registered
owner, who must previously have been
personally notified. An act of 1877 declares
a Sheriff's sale made in the name of an un-
known owner shall vest the title in the pur-
chaser, subject to the right of redemption |
within one year by the lawful owner.
Say the Registry Act Is Repealed.
Mckay contends this act repeals the act
of 1871 and that as the sale was made in the
name of an unknown owner, the sale stands
and the property is his. The court below
sustained him, but it is to the interest of
the city that the lower court be reversed.
The registry act of 1871 is considered one of
the best laws the city has. 1t protects
property holders from having their property
sold over their heads by the Sheriff for
taxes or municipal liens without their get
ting due notice and chance to avert the
trouble. 1t protects the city from IN
scrupulous owners lodging their taxes. and
on the line of street improvements shows
q reliable record of the properties liable
to assessment. In every way the
law is liked by the authorities
because under it every property is properly
recorded without reference to the county
records, and the city is thereby saved
thousands of dollars annually in numerous
WAYS The plaintiffs in the case assert that
the law Of 1877 is general law, and does
not repeal that of 1871, which is local
special law. They claim the two laws stand
together and do not conflict.
ED,,r nous h,,t No Nora |