Opinion
November 30, 1955.
January 3, 1956.
Municipalities — Third Class Cities — Townships — Annexation — Tract contiguous to other tracts annexed.
1. Where the owners of tract A, located in a township, and contiguous to a city, successfully petition for annexation, the owners of tract B, also in the township, and contiguous to tract A but not to the city, may legally seek annexation on the basis that contiguity has been gained through tract A. [537]
2. Lancaster City Annexation Case (No. 4), 374 Pa. 543, followed. [537]
Argued November 30, 1955. Before STEARNE, JONES, BELL, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 339, Jan. T., 1955, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Lancaster County, Sept. T., 1952, Minutes 560, in re Lancaster City Ordinance No. 361952. Order affirmed; reargument refused January 27, 1956.
Appeal by township from city annexation ordinance.
Order entered dismissing appeal, opinion by WISSLER, P. J. Township appealed.
William B. Arnold, for appellant. John B. Rengier, Assistant City Solicitor, with him Bernard M. Zimmerman, City Solicitor, Louis S. May, W. G. Johnstone, Jr. and Brown Zimmerman, for appellees.
These annexation proceedings have to do with the annexation of land, in which appellants claim that there was no physical contiguity of the annexed land at the time of enactment of the ordinance.
This appeal is dismissed on the authority of Lancaster City Annexation Case (No. 4), 37 Pa. 543, 98 A.2d 33, in which the same question was decided adversely to the appellants.
The order of the court below is affirmed; costs to be paid by the appellant.