Skip to content

Piper v. Singer

Piper and another against Singer

Piper v. Singer, 4 Serg. & Rawle 354 (1818)

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided: September 15, 1818
Judges: Tilghman
Citations: 4 Serg. & Rawle 354

Cited by 0

Headnotes

The burgessessj&c. of the borough of of Westmorelan<l,.bave authority to a^a^on the'7 public property belonging to the county, theHmi'tsd:'11 the borough, that thVprotiest^s°not°Un” taxable, for rough'purpos‘•'s-

Summary

In Error.. WRIT of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland county, in a suit brought by Simon Singer, of the borough of Greensburg, in-the county of Westmoreland, against Robert Piper and others, commis_ , . sioners or the county, to recover certain taxes which had been assessed on the public buildings belonging to the county, situate within the borough, u die Court below, judgment was entered by agreement, in favour of the plaintiff, for the purpose of taking a writ of error, without prejudice, and having the cause examined and determined by the Supreme Court, upon a statement of facts which accompanied the record, and which was substantially, as follows : In the month of May, 1815, the burgesses of the borough of Greensburg, directed that a tax should be assessed and levied within the said borough, for the purposes indicated in their act of incorporation. The sum of one hundred dollars, was assessed upon the public property belonging to the county of Westmoreland, situate within the borough: viz. the court house, jail, &c. as the proportion of the tax for that year, which should be paid by the county, for, and on account of the said property. This was the fair and proper proportion of the tax,' according to an impartial and legal valuation of the property. The county commissioners refused to pay it, alleging that the property of the public, within the bounds of an incorporated borough, was not subject to taxation for borough purposes.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Tilghman

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Tilghman C- J.

The question in this case is, whether the burgesses and assistants of the borough of Greensburg had *355 a right to assess and levy a tax on the court house, and other public property, belonging to the county of Westmoreland, and-situate within the limits of the said borough.

The town of Greensburg, in the county of Westmoreland, was erected into a borough, by act of assembly, on the 9th Feb. 1799. (5. Car. and Bi. L. 362’.) By the 4th sect, of the act, the burgesses ,and assistants are authorised, “ to make such ordinances, rules, and regulations, as-may be necessary for improving, and keeping in order, the streets, and alleys, within the said borough, and removing nuisances, or obstructions therefrom, and the same, to annul, alter, or make anew, as occasion may require, and also, to assess, levy, and collect a tax, for the said purposes,” &c. And in laying the assessment, they are to be governed by the valuation of taxable property, taken from the last assessment. Now if this law is taken literally, it would be impossible to tax the property the county, because, there never was any valuation of such property, in any -former assessment. Then, if we consider the l-easonableness of the thing, and the probable intent the legislature, there is great cause for exempting the public property of the county, from borough taxes. Before the erection of the borough, two main roads through the town of Greensburg, were probably sufficient for the accommodation of the county; and these were kept, in repair, at the expense of the county. But the inhabitants of the borough require a number of streets, and alleys, for their own particular accommodation, in which the inhabitants of the county general, have no concern, and therefore, ought not to be taxied for keeping them in repair. The general understanding has been, that the property of counties was not taxable for city or borough purposes. I have made enquiry in the city of Philadelphia, and find, that the public buildings, &c. belonging to the county, have never been taxed. So that far as long usage goes, the construction has been fixed. • I am therefore of opinion, that the property of the county of Westmoreland, was not liable to taxation, and that the judgment should be reversed.

Judgment reversed’.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.