Division of Lansford Borough

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Division of Lansford Borough, 141 Pa. 134 (Pa. 1891)
21 A. 503; 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1051
Clark, Cttbiam, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams

Division of Lansford Borough

Opinion of the Court

Pee Cttbiam:

This case is here as upon a certiorari. That writ is a very narrow plank to walk upon. We have nothing but the record, and if that discloses no error, our plain duty is to affirm. The opinion of the court is no part of the record.

The only assignment of error which requires notice is the fifth, which is as follows: “ The report of the commissioners does not show that there was any notice given of the adjournment of their meeting from the borough of Lansford to the borough of Mauch Chunk, to hear further evidence in the case; nor, in point of fact, was there any such notice given.” We do not understand it to be denied that due notice of the first meeting had been given, and that the commissioners met at the time and place designated in the notice. The presumption is that the adjournment was public, and that the appellent had notice of it. A public adjournment is sufficient notice of the adjourned meeting: Peach Bottom Tp. Road, 3 Penny. 541; Paradise Road, 29 Pa. 20. “ An adjournment,” says Blackstone, “ is no more than a continuance of the session from one *138day to another, as the word signifies.” The adjournment of the commissioners is analogous to the adjournment of a court. The session is, in law, continuous. The adjournment from day to day is a matter of convenience, of which parties, jurors, and witnesses are bound to take notice. We find no error in this record.

Affirmed.

On April 18th, a motion for a re-argument was refused.

Reference

Full Case Name
DIVISION OF LANSFORD BOROUGH
Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Where commissioners, appointed to divide a borough into wards, under the act of May 14, 1874, P. L. 159, and its supplements, met after due notice at the time and place designated, it will be presumed that an adjournment for further hearing to another time and place was public, and their report need not show expressly that formal notice of the adjourned meeting was posted.