Sener v. Corporation of the Borough of Ephrata

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May 28, 1896

Sener v. Corporation of the Borough of Ephrata, 176 Pa. 80 (Pa. 1896)

34 A. 954; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1045

Dean, Fell, McCollum, Mitchell, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The learned judge of the court below reached a correct conclusion in this case. The act of 1895 is plainly expressed, is definite in its directions, and free from ambiguity. We cannot reform it to meet a supposed legislative intent not expressed and not apparent on its face. The conclusions of law drawn by the learned judge are an adequate discussion of the subject, and justify the decree appealed from. It is affirmed upon these conclusions. The costs to be paid by the appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name: William Z. Sener, D. J. McCaa, Levi Landis and Martin S. Fry, Taxpayers v. The Corporation of the Borough of Ephrata, William K. Mohler, Burgess, and George F. Groff, Jacob Spangler, J. B. Eshleman, George E. Mohler, John F. Mentzer and David B. Lefever, Town Council of the said Borough of Ephrata
Cited By: 4 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Municipalities — Boroughs—Municipal indebtedness — Increase of debt— Elections — Act of April 18, 18.95. Under the act of April 18, 1895, P. L. 36, a municipality can only increase its indebtedness at any one time, at any one election, by an amount not over two per centum, by a vote of the people. The court will not assume that the two lines commencing with the 18th line of section 4 of the act of April 20, 1874, P. L. 65, were accidentally dropped in the act of April 18, 1895, P. L. 36. It seems that the act of April 18, 1895, P. L. 36, is not defective in title, and is constitutional.