Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LANCASTER CITY ANNEXATION CASE (NO. 3) (06/26/53)

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


June 26, 1953

LANCASTER CITY ANNEXATION CASE (NO. 3)

Appeal, No. 202, Jan. T., 1953, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Lancaster County, Sept. Sessions, 1952, Minutes 553, in re Lancaster City Ordinance No. 28-1952. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

William B. Arnold, for appellants.

Bernard M. Zimmerman, City Solicitor, with him John B. Rengier, Assistant City Solicitor, for appellee.

Paul A. Mueller, for petitioning property owner, appellee.

Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

Author: Musmanno

[ 374 Pa. Page 542]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO

In this case the City of Lancaster, by ordinance No. 28-1952, annexed 3.713 acres of uninhabited land owned by the Armstrong Cork Company, and lying contiguous to the City's existing boundaries. The Township of Manheim, the Manheim School District, tax collector and an individual taxpayer of the Township appealed to

[ 374 Pa. Page 543]

    the Quarter Sessions Court, alleging, inter alia, that the annexation and related apportionment-of-property-and-indebtedness provisions of the Third Class City Code under which the ordinance was enacted were unconstitutional.

The lower court held a hearing, but before it received the transcribed testimony thereof, the status of Manheim Township was changed, as of January 5, 1953, from a second-class township to a first-class township. On appellants' motion, the record was reopened to receive evidence of this change of status.

The lower court thereafter sustained the constitutionality of the 1931 Third Class City Law and 1951 Third Class City Code under which the annexation ordinance was enacted, and held that the change of the status of Manheim Township during pendency of the appeal did not invalidate the annexation; and it dismissed the appeal. This appeal followed.

The questions raised in this appeal have been decided in the preceding two cases.*fn1

The order of the court below is, therefore, affirmed, with costs on the appellants.

Disposition

The order of the court below is, therefore, affirmed, with costs on the appellants.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.