Opinion
May 5, 1969.
June 27, 1969.
Eminent Domain — Condemnation by redevelopment authority — Filing of open-end bond — Preliminary objections questioning sufficiency of security — Dismissal without requiring answer or holding hearing.
In this case, in which it appeared that a redevelopment authority condemned appellants' property, upon which the authority filed an open-end bond; that the condemnees filed preliminary objections contending that the financial resources of the authority were questionable and the bond filed was of "insufficient security"; and that the trial judge dismissed the preliminary objections without requiring an answer or holding a hearing; it was Held that the lower court abused its discretion, since a question of fact was raised by the preliminary objections as to the sufficiency of the security.
Before BELL, C. J., JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 280, 281, 282 and 300, Jan. T., 1969, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, March T., 1968, Nos. 165 and 166, June T., 1968, No. 202, and Oct. T., 1968, No. 707, in re condemnation of premises 701-3-5 Chestnut Avenue and 1203-03 1/2 Seventh Street, etc., in the City of Altoona. Order modified, and as modified, affirmed, and case remanded for further proceedings.
Eminent domain.
Preliminary objections by condemnees to declarations of taking dismissed, opinion by JUBELIRER, J. Condemnees appealed.
Alexander A. Notopoulos, with him Abraham Colbus, and Goodman, Notopoulos Silverman, for appellants.
Paul S. Foreman, with him Leo C. Mullen, and Mullen, Casanave Foreman, for appellee.
The Redevelopment Authority of Altoona condemned appellants' properties upon which the Authority filed an open-end bond. Appellants filed preliminary objections contending that, since the Authority had no power of taxation and that its financial resources were questionable, the bond filed was of "insufficient security." The trial judge dismissed the preliminary objections without requiring an answer or holding a hearing. In so doing we feel that the lower court abused its discretion since a question of fact was raised by the preliminary objections as to the sufficiency of the security. In order to make a determination on the merits of that contention, an adequate record should have been made. Hence we remand the case for proceedings upon which this determination can be based.
Appellants' contentions with respect to notice, negotiations, and statement of "need and purpose" have been examined and found to be without merit, and the determination of the lower court on these issues is affirmed.
Order modified and as modified affirmed; and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.