Moore v. Pittsburgh
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Moore v. Pittsburgh, 254 Pa. 185 (Pa. 1916)
98 A. 1037; 1916 Pa. LEXIS 703
Brown, Frazer, Mestrezat, Stewart, Walling
Moore v. Pittsburgh
Opinion of the Court
The sole question raised on this appeal is the constitutionality of the Acts of May 6, 1915, P. L. 260 and 272. We find nothing in the objections to their constitutionality which would have justified the court below in declaring them to be legislation in contravention of the Constitution, and the decree is affirmed at appellant’s.costs, on the opinion of the learned chancellor dismissing his bill.
Reference
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Municipalities — Indebtedness—Cities of the second class — Act of May 6, 1915, P. L. 260 — Validity—Constitutional law — Constitution of Pennsylvania, Art. I, Sec. 17; Art. Ill, Secs. 7, 8 and 10— Federal Constitution, Hth Amendment. 1. Nothing but contracts such as involve property rights are protected by Article I, Section 17, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, forbidding the passage of any law impairing the obligation of contracts; mere political rights or privileges are not within its purview. The Act of May 6, 1915, P. L. 260, providing that the indebtedness of each city consolidated under the provisions of the Act of February Y, 1906, P. L. Y, shall be paid by the consolidated city, does not offend against this constitutional provision. 2. The said Act of 1915, is a supplement to, not an amendment of, the Act of 1906, and does not violate Article III, Section 6, of the Constitution relating to amendments. 3. The said Act of 1915 is not a local or special law and does not violate Article III, Section Y, of the Constitution forbidding the passage of local or special laws regulating the affairs of counties, cities, townships, wards, boroughs, or school districts. 4. The said Act of 1915 is not contrary to Article III, Sections 8 and 10, of the Constitution limiting the power of municipalities to incur new indebtedness and prescribing the details that must be observed in so doing. 5. The said Act of 1915 does not offend against the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.