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.

SAULSBURY v. BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY (ET AL. (01/08/64)

January 8, 1964

SAULSBURY
v.
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY (ET AL., APPELLANT).



Appeals, Nos. 88 and 89, March T., 1963, from judgments and orders of Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, June T., 1962, Nos. 2 and 3, in cases of William Saulsbury, William Evans, Frank Slivosky et al. v. Bethlehem Steel Company and City of Johnstown; and George Youngeridge, Edward Feeney, Mike Call et al. v. Bethlehem Steel Company and Borough of Franklin. Judgments and orders affirmed.

COUNSEL

Samuel R. DiFrancesco, Sr., City and Borough Solicitor, with him DiFrancesco & DiFrancesco, for appellants.

Richard J. Green, Jr., for appellees.

Before Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.

Author: Eagen

[ 413 Pa. Page 317]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE EAGEN

On December 1, 1961, the City of Johnstown in Cambria County, pursuant to the authority given by

[ 413 Pa. Page 318]

    the Act of June 25, 1947, P.L. 1145, as amended, 53 P.S. ยง 6851, enacted an ordinance levying an occupational privilege tax of $10 per annum for the year 1962, on every individual engaged in an occupation within the corporate limits of the city, whose gross earnings would amount to $600 or more during the year.

The pertinent provision of the ordinance is as follows: "Beginning on the first Monday of January, 1962, each individual engaged in an occupation in which his earnings are $600.00 or more gross, as hereinbefore defined, within the corporate limits of the City of Johnstown shall be required to pay an annual occupation and occupational privilege tax at a flat rate of $10.00."

On March 1, 1962, the Borough of Franklin, in the same county, enacted an identical ordinance.

Separate actions in equity were instituted by individuals employed within the aforesaid city and borough, challenging the validity of the ordinances. In due course, the court below entered judgment on the pleadings for the plaintiffs in both actions, ruling that the ordinances were void, and entered orders restraining collection of the tax imposed. The municipalities filed separate appeals.

Since the same legal questions are involved, it was agreed that the cases should be considered ...


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.