29 Pa. Commw. 69 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1977
Opinion by
Appellants appeal the order of the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas requiring them to continue the fluoridation of the public water system under their control pending the final disposition of all allowable appeals. We affirm.
In January 1975, the EHB upheld the DER and refused to permit the city to discontinue fluoridation. That order was reversed by this Court on December 2, 1975 in Department of Environmental Resources v. City of Lebanon, 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 132, 348 A.2d 166 (1975). Appellees filed an appeal to the Supreme Court which was granted and is still pending.
On August 20,1975, the tank which held the fluoride split and released all of its contents. Although there has been no contention nor evidence that any deliberate or intentional action caused the split, appellants have not fluoridated the water since that date. In November 1975, appellees brought an action for spe
Plainly and simply put the City of Lebanon agreed to continue the fluoridation of its public water supply system until all allowable appeals are terminated. This event has yet to occur. The City may not take advantage of the unfortunate rupture of its fluoride holding tank to avoid its legal promise and obligation. As we said in the beginning, this controversy is not about fluoridation of water but about an agreement.
This appeal followed.
Appellants’ first argument is that the court below lacked jurisdiction to issue its order. They contend that jurisdiction over subject matter and parties was transferred to the EHB by the stipulation of March 27, 1974, and therefore any request for equitable relief should have been brought before this Court. We disagree. The stipulation itself bound appellants not to discontinue fluoridation “pending the final disposition of all allowable appeals. ...” While this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the EHB,, the common pleas court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to order compliance with a prior agreement expressly enforcible during the pendency of appeals. “A compromise or settlement of litigation is always referable to the action or proceeding in the court where the compromise was effected; it is through that court the carrying out of the agreement should thereafter be controlled.” Melnick v. Binenstock, 318 Pa. 533, 536, 179 A. 77, 78 (1935).
Appellants contend, however, that even if the common pleas court had jurisdiction to issue its order,
Accordingly, we will enter the following
Order
Now, March 3,1977, the order of the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas at No. 34 Equity Docket 1975, dated February 13, 1976, is hereby affirmed.
The Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, as amended, 71 P.S. §51 et seq.
The Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act of July 31, 1970, PL. 673, as amended, 17 P.S. §211.101 et seq.