In re Opening of Knox Street
In re Opening of Knox Street
Opinion of the Court
Opinion bt
This is an appeal from the order of the court below sustaining the exceptions to the report of a jury of view and setting aside the report. The question raised is whether the jury was regularly and lawfully continued, and its report filed in accordance with the law. The legislation involved in the decision of the case and the authorities bearing upon the subject have been carefully considered and reviewed at some length by the court below in an opinion by a judge of large experience and much learning in all matters relating to the road law of the state. We have given the case due consideration, and can find no reason to differ from the views expressed and the conclusion reached in the opinion filed. It therefore seems to us unnecessary to add further dissertation or discussion.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Statutes — Repeal of local law by a local law — Former not revived by unconsiilutionality of latter. Where a local or special law is repealed by another local or special law, and the latter is then repealed, the former is not revived if there is a general law governing the subject; and the Act of June 6,1873, P. L. (1874) 407, which was explicitly repealed by the Act of June 26,1895, P. L. 320, was rendered inoperative by the Act of May 21, 1895, P. L. 87, and is not revived by the fact that the act of May 21,1895, is unconstitutional. Road law — Statutes—Repeal—When continuance must be made. The Act of May 21,1895, P. L. 87, which gave a jury of view six months for their labors, being unconstitutional, proceedings in Philadelphia are to be regulated by .the Act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 551, as modified by the Act of March 13, 1867, P. L. 420, and viewers must make their report to the next court; that is, within the next month of their appointment, unless continued by the court; otherwise, the proceedings become defunct, and the court itself has no power by a nunc pro tunc order or otherwise to resuscitate the defunct order to view. Road law — Practice, Q. S. — Continuances, how to be made. The jurisdiction of the quarter sessions in road cases is purely statutory, and hence the mode of proceeding prescribed by law must be strictly pursued. Reports by juries of view must be made at the next term. The terms in Philadelphia are monthly. If, for any sufficient reason, the report cannot be made to the next term, the proper course is to continue the order to view and make returnable to the next succeeding term; but this must be done before the order has expired ; that is, before or during the session of the court to which it is returnable. If that term is permitted to pass without the presentation of the report or an order extending the time for making the same, the order to view becomes, ipso facto, inoperative, and with it the authority of the viewers ceases. The court itself has no power subsequently, by a nunc pro tunc order or otherwise, to resuscitate the defunct order to view. If anything further is attempted, it must be done by proceedings de novo.