Division of Lansford Borough
Division of Lansford Borough
Opinion of the Court
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
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.