Appeal from decree of Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Allegheny County, April T., 1969, No. Misc. 42, in the matter of Annexation to Borough of Whitehall of a portion of Borough of Baldwin.
George Raynovich, Jr., with him Stone & Raynovich, for appellant.
Arnold V. Plum, with him Edward R. Lawrence, Jr., and Lawrence, Van Gorder, Bucey & Plum, for appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Opinion by Montgomery, J.
[ 217 Pa. Super. Page 347]
The appellees, freeholders of the Borough of Baldwin, seek to annex to the contiguous Borough of Whitehall
[ 217 Pa. Super. Page 348]
that part of the Borough of Baldwin wherein their respective properties were situated. The proceedings were filed pursuant to the Act of February 1, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1656, §§ 431, 432, and 433, 53 P.S. §§ 45431, 45432, and 45433. The lower court having approved the annexation, this appeal by the Borough of Baldwin followed.
The main issue raised in this appeal is whether the aforesaid Act was repealed by the electorate's adoption on April 23, 1968, of Proposal No. 6, amending Article IX of the Pennsylvania Constitution on Local Government. We have considered this question several times, the latest of which was in Hempfield Township Appeal (No. 1), 217 Pa. Superior Ct. 439, 272 A.2d 729 (1970), and have held that the new Article IX did not repeal prior statutes pertaining to proceedings pending at the time of action by the electorate.
We are now asked to determine the effect of that article on proceedings commenced after the date of its adoption. The original petition in this case was filed on April 15, 1969; the original adjudication and decree were dated and filed on January 20, 1970; and, following the dismissal of exceptions to the original decree, the final decree approving the annexation, from which this appeal was taken, was dated and filed on September 3, 1970.
It is the contention of the appellant that under § 8 of said Article IX, the failure of the General Assembly to enact uniform legislation for changing boundaries of municipalities within two year after its adoption had the effect of repealing the non-uniform statute on which this proceeding was predicated. For that reason appellant argues that the final decree entered in this case after the expiration of the two-year period was invalid.
The first paragraph of § 8 of Article IX provides for uniform legislation in this field ...