Borough of Beltzhoover v. Maple
Borough of Beltzhoover v. Maple
Opinion of the Court
Smith v. Kingston Bor., 120 Pa. 357, squarely decides, under the general borough act of April 3, 1851, P. L. 320, that upon the failure of a property owner to repair his sidewalk, after notice to do so, the borough may repair it and file a lien against the owner for the cost thereof, with 20 per centum additional as a penalty. This is precisely what was done in this case; and, although a large number of errors were assigned to the proceedings below, we fail to see merit in any of them. The discussion of the foot-front rule is out of place, as that was adopted merely as a means of ascertaining the cost of the improvement to each lot. Nor is it any.objection that separate liens were filed against each lot of the block. The defendant has cut his property up, and plotted it as town lots. The court below might have consolidated the suits to save costs, but the same object was accomplished by the arrangement that one suit should be the test of all.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- BOROUGH OF BELTZHOOVER v. T. S. MAPLE
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Under § 2, act of April 3, 1851, P. L. 320, upon the failure of an abutting lot-owner to construct a board walk after notice so to do, the borough may construct it ahd file a lien for the cost thereof, with 20 per cent additional as a penalty: Smithy. Kingston Bor., 120 Pa. 357. 2. The fact that a separate lien is filed against each lot of a block of contiguous lots, will not affect the validity of the liens, and the court may order that a final judgment in a suit on one lien shall be a test of the validity of all of them. 3. When liens ¿pe filed against lots in a borough block which are unimproved by the erection of buildings upon them, their validity is not affected by the fact that the foot-front rule was adopted as a means of ascertaining the cost of the improvement chargeable to each lot.