Lamb v. City of Erie

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Lamb v. City of Erie, 262 Pa. 391 (Pa. 1918)
105 A. 463; 1918 Pa. LEXIS 657
Brown, Fox, Frazer, Pee, Simpson, Stewart, Walling

Lamb v. City of Erie

Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam,

Before the contract between the City of Erie and Metz and Roth for the construction of the Mill Creek conduit could take effect as a contract, it was necessary to have on it the certificate of the superintendent of finance, as required by Article VII, paragraph 13, of the Act of June 27,1913, P. L. 568, and, as it bore no such certificate, it did not “take effect”: City of Erie v. Moody, 176 Pa. 478. As nothing could be lawfully done under it, its invalidity continued when the city entered into the agreement with George E. Cantrell, Inc., to complete it. The enjoining decree of the court below could not have been withheld, and it is now affirmed at the costs of the appellants.

Reference

Status
Published
Syllabus
Municipalities — Cities of the third class — Act of June 21, 1918, Art. VII, Paragraph 18, P. L. 568 — Certificate of superintendent of finance — N ecessity. A construction contract entered into by a city of the third class is not valid unless it has the certificate of the superintendent of finance as required by Article VII, paragraph 13, of the Act of June 27, 1913, P. L. 568; and a city of the third class which has entered into a contract lacking such certificate is properly enjoined from making payments thereunder.