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.

WHITEMARSH TOWNSHIP AUTHORITY v. POORMAN. (03/19/63)

March 19, 1963

WHITEMARSH TOWNSHIP AUTHORITY, APPELLANT,
v.
POORMAN.



Appeal, No. 375, Oct. T., 1962, from order of Court of Common pleas of Montgomery County, Nov. T., 1960, No. 52, in case of Whitemarsh Township Authority v. Harold L. Poorman et ux. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

John P. Yatsko, with him Elmer L. Menges, for appellant.

Alonzo R. Horsey, with him Henderson, Wetherill & O'Hey, for appellees.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Weight, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

Author: Ervin

[ 200 Pa. Super. Page 246]

OPINION BY ERVIN, J.

The facts and question involved in this appeal are clearly set forth in the opinion of the court below, as

[ 200 Pa. Super. Page 247]

    follows: "In February of 1960, the defendants, Harold and Sarah Poorman, were the owners of a property located on Twynnwood Road in Whitemarsh Township. All of this property completely fronts on Twynnwood Road at a point where the said road arcs at a 90 degree angle so that the property fronts on both sides of this arc. This in effect gave defendants a greater frontage on Twynnwood Road than the ordinary property of this size. The Whitemarsh Township Authority assessed the property in the amount of $1,125.97 at the rate of $5.17 per foot for a total of 217.79 feet. This assessment took in the complete frontage on both sides of the curve on Twynnwood Road without any exemption due to the fact that the property was on this corner. The defendants in this action of Scire Facias Sur Municipal Claim contend that a property on such an arcing corner is entitled to a special corner assessment whereby 100 feet of this frontage will not be included in computing the assessment. They, therefore, conclude in their Affidavit of Defense that the assessment on their property should be reduced accordingly. The sole question in this case is whether the Whitemarsh Township Authority properly refused to give defendants' property the benefit of the 100 feet exemption."

Section 4 of the Municipality Authorities Act of 1945, P.L. 382, as amended, 53 PS § 306 B(s), authorizes an authority "To charge the cost of construction of any sewer constructed by the Authority against the properties benefited, improved or accommodated thereby according to the foot front rule. Such charges shall be based upon the foot frontage of the properties so benefited, and shall be a lien against such properties. Such charges may be assessed and collected and such liens may be enforced in the manner provided by law for the assessment and collection of charges and the enforcement of liens of the municipality in which such Authority is located: ...."

[ 200 Pa. Super. Page 248]

Article XV, § 1509, of The Second Class Township Code, being the Act of May 1, 1933, P.L. 103, as amended, 53 PS § 66509, provides as follows: "The charge for any such sewer or drain construction in any township shall be assessed upon the properties accommodated or benefited, in either of the following methods:

"(a) By an assessment, pursuant to a resolution or ordinance of the board of supervisors, of each lot or piece of land in proportion to its frontage abutting on the sewer or drain, allowing such equitable reduction in the case of properties abutting on more ...


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.