Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

VERARDI (ET AL. v. SHARPSBURG BOROUGH. (04/17/62)

April 17, 1962

VERARDI (ET AL., APPELLANT),
v.
SHARPSBURG BOROUGH.



Appeal, No. 108, March T., 1962, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1961, No. 750, in case of Joseph E. Verardi, Jr., Mary Miller, August Bondi et al. v. Borough of Sharpsburg, William Neff, O. B. Bruno et al. Decree affirmed.

COUNSEL

Gilbert E. Morcroft, for appellant.

Franklyn E. Conflenti, with him Leo Kostman, Sidney M. Ruffin, and Burgwin, Ruffin, Perry & Pohl, for appellee.

William H. Saye, for amicus curiae.

Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.

Author: Cohen

[ 407 Pa. Page 247]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN

Appellant appeals from the refusal of the lower court to grant a preliminary injunction enjoining the appellees, Borough of Sharpsburg (Borough) and its officers, from awarding certain contracts.

The sole question involved in this appeal is: Where a borough advertises for bids on items costing in excess of $1,000, are the notice requirements of The Borough Code (53 PS §§ 45001-49313) satisfied where the said advertisements appear in a newspaper which is published within the county but not within the borough?

Appellees published bids for mechanical equipment needed by the borough in two Pittsburgh newspapers

[ 407 Pa. Page 248]

    of general circulation in Allegheny County in which the borough is situated. In so doing, they maintain, they acted in accordance with § 1316 of The Borough Code, Act of 1957, May 17, P.L. 161, No. 76, 53 PS § 46316 which provides, inter alia: "All contracts or purchases in excess of one thousand dollars ... shall not be made except with and from the lowest responsible bidder after due notice in one newspaper of general circulation, published or circulating in the county in which the borough is situated...." (Emphasis supplied).

Plaintiff-appellant contends that the advertisement for bids should not have been made pursuant to the above section, but rather, should have been made in compliance with § 109 of The Borough Code, Act of 1951, July 19, P.L. 1026, No. 217, 53 PS § 45109, which, in part, states: "Wherever, in any of the provisions of this act, notice is required to be given in one newspaper in the county, such notice shall be published in a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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