Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1916-09-23

lexcept that no bond had then been
given by the city.
1918 Act Mandatory
The Act of 1918 makes mandatory
that which under the Act of 1891 was
permissible. If objection had been
made when this fact was first dis
covered 1t doubtless would have been
remedied Immediately. We think 1t
may be remedied now by an applica-
ton on the part OF the city to. tender
security as required by the statute.
The onl. remaining exception
which In our opinion requires partt-
cular mention is that the viewers
buildings erected after January 2,
1871. The provision of that statute
as to the disallowance of claims for
such buildings has already been cited
herein at length. Substantially the
same provision is in the Act of 1891.
Whether this legislation is constltu-
tional is an important inquiry.
"All the exceptants have taken ap-
peals from the report of the viewers
and necessarily their respective claims
must be heard and decided upon these
appeals.
On the Taxation Exception
The allegation is made by the ex-
ceptants that the city of Harrisburg
is estopped from claiming the right
to be exempt from damages for i'm
provements erected on the west side
OF Front street since January 2, 1871,
for the reason that the city has taxed
the property upon which such i'm
provements have been made upon the
basis of value as indicated by such
improvements. has assessed such
property with the cost of grading
paving and curbing said Front street
between Herr and Calder streets, and
has issued building permits for the
erection and repair of said improve
ments. All admissible evidence can
be offered upon the trial of the ap-
peals, and we decline at the present
whether the city is liable for the val
ue of the buildings erected since
January .. 1871.
That question. as we have already
intimated, can be more satisfactor-
lily determined upon the hearing of
the several appeals filed by the re-
spective exceptants. Without decid-
ing the question now 1t may not be out
of place to say that while the auth
critics in other States. including New
York and Massachusetts,. hold that a
recovery can be had for such i'm
provements. apparently the Pennsyl-
vania authorities sustain the validity
OF legislation depriving the property
owner of the right to recover for such
improvements.
Upon the trial of the appeals the
date when the several improvements
were made can be shown by evi-
dence and all the circumstances con-
nected with the making of the i'm
provements and in the light of all
relevant testimony then taken the
legal question as to the right of the
owners to recover and of the liabil-
ity of the city for these improve
ments can be more intelligently de-
termined. If there is any error in the
statement of the dimensions of any
property in the report of the viewers.
1t can be corrected upon the hearing
of the appeals.
I'VE considered all the exceptions
filed to this report. We have not
specifically referred to them by num-
Der in all the cases. They are sub
stantially the same in each case and
every exception has been carefully
considered and is now overruled.
with the exception of the one relating
to the liability OF the city for the
value of improvements erected after
January 2. 1871, which question can
be intelligently and properly deter
mined upon the trial of the several
appeals taken by the present except
ants"