Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

AGENTIS v. BETHLEHEM (01/05/65)

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: January 5, 1965.

AGENTIS, APPELLANT,
v.
BETHLEHEM

Appeal from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, May T., 1964, No. 6, in case of Anthony S. Agentis, Sr. et al. v. City of Bethlehem et al.

COUNSEL

Philip J. Gahagan, for appellants.

T. E. Butterfield, Jr., City Solicitor, with him Jackson M. Sigmon, Assistant City Solicitor, for appellees.

Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 416 Pa. Page 355]

This appeal is from the decree of the lower court which sustained defendants' demurrer to the evidence and dismissed the complaint.

The complaint, a taxpayers' suit, alleged that at a primary election the voters of the City of Bethlehem rejected a proposal to increase the city's indebtedness by $6,720,000 for the purpose of providing funds and toward the acquisition of land and the erection and equipping of an administration building, town hall, library and public safety building.

Subsequent to the voters' rejection of the proposed increased indebtedness, the Bethlehem City Council initiated proceedings for the passage of two ordinances: (1) to organize Bethlehem City Center Authority under the provisions of the Act of May 2, 1945, P. L. 382, 53 P.S. ยงยง 301-322 and (2) a proposal to revise the city's capital budget. Both ordinances were passed on first reading. The complaint prays that defendants be enjoined from proceeding with the organization of the authority and from putting into effect the proposed revisions of the capital budget. Defendants filed their answer, admitted the results of the election and the passage on first reading of the two ordinances referred to, and denied that plaintiffs were entitled to equitable relief. At the conclusion of plaintiffs' case defendants demurred to the evidence. The chancellor sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint. An appeal was taken to this Court by one of the original plaintiffs. The complaint was properly dismissed because it was without merit.

Decree affirmed at appellant's cost.

Disposition

Decree affirmed.

19650105

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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