Appeal, No. 210, March T., 1962, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Feb. T., 1961, No. 21, in case of Borough of Stockdale v. Fred Astle et al. Judgment affirmed.
Austin J. Murphy, with him Jack H. France, for appellant.
John E. Costello, for appellees.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Keim, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE O'BRIEN
This appeal involves an interpretation of a section of The Borough Code, specifically, the Act of May 4, 1927, P.L. 519, § 1712, as most recently amended by the Act of December 1, 1959, P.L. 1623, § 1. (53 P.S. § 46712, 1962 Supp.)
The borough, without petition from a majority of the abutting property owners, enacted an ordinance directing the improvement of certain streets within its limits and "providing for the payment thereof by the borough and abutting property owners as provided by
in an order directing the borough to give a pro-rata credit to each of the appellees by dividing proportionately among them the contributions received. The borough excepted to the opinion, order and verdict of the trial judge and moved for a new trial or judgment n.o.v. The court en banc dismissed the exceptions, refused the motion for new trial or judgment n.o.v., affirmed the conclusion of the trial court and entered judgment accordingly. The borough appeals from the judgment thus entered.
The borough urges that the language of the Act, above quoted, grants to it the option of assessing against the property owners either two-thirds of the entire cost, or two-thirds of the net cost, as determined by deducting contributions. We can no more accept this contention than did the court below.
In Sharpsville Borough v. Randall, 268 Pa. 585, 112 A. 112 (1920), we held that where a street railway company had contributed to the cost of improvement of a street, the abutting property owners were entitled to have the contribution deducted from the total cost before apportioning the residue between the municipality and the property owners. Appellant argues that contributions from private sources should be considered on a different footing than contributions from other governmental bodies of tax money. We cannot accept this argument, particularly in view of the fact that the Act contemplates "the assistance or contribution of the State, county or a corporation occupying the thoroughfare". No distinction is made in accordance with the source of the contribution, all are treated alike in the statute.
The cardinal principle of statutory construction is that the intention of the Legislature must be effectuated and, if possible, effect must be given to all of the provisions of the enactment. Act of May 28, 1937, ...