Appeal, No. 276 | Pa. | May 9, 1969
Lead Opinion
Opinion by
In Commonwealth v. Glen Alden Corporation, 418 Pa. 57" court="Pa." date_filed="1965-05-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/commonwealth-v-glen-alden-corp-2330067?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2330067">418 Pa. 57, 210 A. 2d 256 (1965), we required the statutory procedures of the Air Pollution Control Act of 1960, P. L. (1959) 2119, 35 P.S. §4001, to be strictly pursued and held that equity had no jurisdiction to inquire into a controversy where to do so would obviate a statutory procedure provided by the legislature for its resolution. The legislature then amended the Air Pollution Control Act of June 12, 1968, P. L. , 35 P.S. §4012.1 by adding, after §12, a new section to read: “Section 12.1 Existing Rights and Remedies Preserved
“Nothing in this act shall be construed as impairing any right or remedy, now or hereafter existing in
The addition to §12 to the Air Pollution Control Act was part of an extensive amendment strengthening the act which changed the membership and powers of the Commission, changed the powers and duties of the Department of Health and the required Air Pollution Control Association, set forth a new declaration of policy and re-defined air pollution.
It is apparent that the legislature by amending the act extended the same cumulative remedies that presently exist to abate the pollution of the waters of this Commonwealth as contained in the Clean Streams Act of 1937, June 22, P. L. 1987, Art. I, §1 et seq., 35 P.S. 691.1 et seq. to the Air Pollution Control Act. It is now clear that equity jurisdiction attaches to restrain a public or private nuisance caused by air pollution and that the lower court correctly dismissed the preliminary objections to equity jurisdiction.
Order affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
I would quash this appeal on the authority of Studio Theaters, Inc. v. Washington, 418 Pa. 73, 78, 209 A. 2d 802 (1965). In that case we held that the existence of a statutory remedy at law was not jurisdictional and thus the dismissal of preliminary objections raising the question was. not appealable under the Act of 1925.