Case Name: PHILADELPHIA, TO USE, v. WILSON JEWELL
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1891-02-16
Citations: 140 Pa. 9
Docket Number: Nos. 389
Parties: PHILADELPHIA, TO USE, v. WILSON JEWELL.
Judges: Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Clark, Williams, McCollum and Mitchell, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 140
Pages: 9–10

Head Matter:
PHILADELPHIA, TO USE, v. WILSON JEWELL.
APPEAL BY DEFENDANTS FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 2 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY.
Argued January 16, 1891
Decided February 16, 1891.
Philadelphia v. Hays, 93 Pa. 72; Pepper v. Philadelphia, 114 Pa. 96; Philadelphia v. Jewell, 135 Pa. 329, as to the construction of the ordinance of Philadelphia city, enacted December 3, 1878, ratifying and approving contracts for paving streets under which work had been done under resolution or ordinance, followed.
Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Clark, Williams, McCollum and Mitchell, JJ.
Nos. 389 January Term 1890,105-114 July Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 18 March Term 1880, M. L. D., C. P. No. 2.
On May 23, 1889, a case stated was filed, wherein the city of Philadelphia, to the use of Jacob M. Peters, was plaintiff, and the “ Estate of Wilson Jewell ” and others were defendants. After argument the court in banc, on December 28, 1889, without opinion filed, entered judgment for the plaintiff on the case stated, for $88.79. Thereupon the use plaintiff took an appeal to No. 219 January Term 1890, and on May 26, 1890, the judgment was affirmed, opinion by Mitchell, J.: Philadelphia v. Jewell, 135 Pa. 329. These appeals, from the judgment of the court below in the same proceeding, were taken by the defendants, specifying that the court erred:
1. In entering judgment for the plaintiff, on the case stated, for any amount whatever.
2. In not entering judgment, on the case stated, for the defendants.
Mr. Victor Guillou (with him Mr. R. D. Maxwell and Mr. Joseph Ball), for the appellants.
Mr. Byron Woodward (with him Mr. William Hopple, Jr.), for the appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The construction of the city ordinance of December 3,1878, has been settled by Philadelphia v. Hays, 93 Pa. 72; Pepper v. Philadelphia, 114 Pa. 96, and by Philadelphia v. Jewell, 135 Pa. 329, and is no longer an open question. In each of the above cases,
The judgment is affirmed.