Redding v. Borough

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania November 9, 1903

Redding v. Borough, 207 Pa. 248 (Pa. 1903)

56 A. 431; 1903 Pa. LEXIS 489

Brown, Dean, Fell, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The learned judge below found that at the time of the making of the contract for the sewer by Diulus Brothers, the indebtedness of the borough was not in excess of the constitutional limit, and the decree must be affirmed on that portion of his opinion and conclusions.

It is true that the report of the viewers did not assess the whole cost of the sewers on the abutting properties, but charged $1,066.89 of it upon the borough. But there was no evidence that that sum was not payable and actually paid by the borough out of current funds.

Decree affirmed with costs.

Reference

Full Case Name: Redding v. Esplen Borough
Cited By: 8 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Municipalities—Boroughs—Municipal debt—Constitutional law—Sewers. A borough entered into a contract for the construction of a sewer at a time when it had no actual outstanding obligations or actual indebtedness except a floating debt much below the two per cent constitutional limit. The contract itself imposed no liabilitj' upon the borough for the construction of the sewer, but viewers subsequently appointed assessed a portion of the damages against the borough. There was no evidence that this sum was not payable and actually paid by the borough out of current funds. Prior to the malting of the sewer contract ordinances had been passed authorizing issues of bonds for various purposes, among others to pay off the floating indebtedness. The amount of these bonds, together with the amount of the sewer contract, amounted to more than the constitutional limit. No bonds, however, were actually issued under these ordinances until after the sewer contract was made, and no purchases of property were made, nor work done for the payment for which the bonds were authorized until long after the sewer contract was made, and, indeed, until the construction of the sewer was almost completed. Held, that the sewer contract did not involve an increase of debt beyond the constitutional limit, and that the contractors were entitled to their money.