City of McKeesport v. McKeesport & Reynoldton Passenger Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
City of McKeesport v. McKeesport & Reynoldton Passenger Railway Co., 252 Pa. 142 (Pa. 1916)
97 A. 184; 1916 Pa. LEXIS 584
Brown, Ctjeiam, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter
City of McKeesport v. McKeesport & Reynoldton Passenger Railway Co.
Opinion of the Court
These two appeals involve the same questions and were argued together. A refusal of the prayer for an instruction in each case that the plaintiff was entitled to recover would have been error, and each judgment is affirmed for the reasons given by the learned president judge of the court below in denying the motion of the defendant for judgment non obstante veredicto and directing judgment to be entered on the verdict in No. 315,
Judgments affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- City of McKeesport v. McKeesport and Reynoldton Passenger Railway Company
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Municipalities —- Street railways ■ — Ordinances — License tax • — ■ Consideration for the use of streets. 1. The Constitution secures to all municipal corporations the exclusive right to either refuse or consent to the construction of street railways within, their limits. Where consent is given the municipality may attach to its consent such terms and conditions as it may deem proper and if the railway company accepts those conditions it is bound by them and must discharge all duties and obligations imposed upon it by the ordinance granting such consent. 2. A borough passed an ordinance granting the right to a street railway company to construct and operate its railway on certain borough streets, the ordinance providing that no license for “borough purposes” should be levied upon the company until the expiration of five years after it began to operate its railway, “and after the expiration of said period of five years said company shall pay into the borough treasury such sums as license as council may hereafter provide for.” After the expiration of the five-year period and after the borough had been incorporated into a city, the city passed an ordinance providing that the railway company should pay for license to the city the sum of $8,000.00 per annum. In an action by the city against the railway company to recover the license charge for certain years, the company defended upon the ground that the provision of the ordinance referred to any general license that might be imposed upon railways and not to a license specifically imposed upon it, and further that the city as a city of the third class had no power to levy the license. Held, that the charge as made was not properly a license fee but was the eonsideration charged by the municipality under the contract for granting consent to the railway company to use and occupy ‘the city streets, and was therefore collectible. 3. In such case where the affidavit of defense set up that the charge was excessive and unreasonable but when no testimony wa3 offered in support of such allegation it must be assumed that the amount fixed in the ordinance was reasonable.