Appeal, No. 152, Jan. T., 1963, from order of Superior Court, Oct. T., 1962, No. 230, affirming order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Sept. T., 1960, No. 387, in case of Whitemarsh Township Authority v. George Elwert and Lillian Elwert, his wife. Order reversed.
Anderson Page, with him Michael L. Strong, Elmer L. Menges, Township Solicitor, and Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, for appellant.
Richard S. Lowe, with him Fox, Differ, DiGiacomo & Lowe, for appellees.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE O'BRIEN
The sole question in this appeal is whether an Authority may adopt simultaneously the so-called "benefit method" and the so-called "foot front method" in the assessment of costs of sewer construction done within the same construction project.
Whitemarsh Township Authority was organized and incorporated by Whitemarsh Township, a township of the second class, pursuant to the Municipality Authorities Act of 1945, P.L. 382, as amended (53 P.S. § 301 et seq.), for the purpose of financing, constructing and leasing a sanitary sewage disposal system in the Township of Whitemarsh.
The appellant Authority seeks to assess George Elwert and Lillian Elwert, his wife, appellees, for certain
costs of construction of a sanitary sewer constructed by the Authority which benefited, improved or accommodated their property. The appellees own and reside on their property located at 517 Ridge Pike, in Whitemarsh Township, Montgomery County.
The Authority has constructed a sanitary sewer line in the bed of Ridge Pike, said sewer extending 28 feet along the front of appellees' property.
On April 15, 1958, the Authority adopted a resolution, and presumably took all other necessary legal action, providing for the use of the "foot front method" in the assessment of sewer construction costs for their project. On June 19, 1958, a supplemental resolution of the Authority was adopted which provided in part that "... where, in the opinion of the Authority, an assessment by the Front Foot Rule cannot legally be made against, or would not adequately measure the benefit to any property, the ...