31 Pa. Super. 331 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1906
The questions raised in the court below by the third, fourth and fifth exceptions to the alderman’s record were not argued before us, and as we conclude the court was right in reversing the judgment of the alderman upon the first exception, those questions will not be considered. Little, if anything, can be added profitably to the opinion filed by the court upon the constriietion of the two acts of 1859 ; the conclusion is irresistible that they confer no right upon any person to make the city plaintiff in an action, who would not have had the right before their enactment and independently of them.
True, the act of 1901 does not expressly declare that an action in the name of the city may not be brought by any person, without the city’s consent. But neither does it declare that
Judgment affirmed.