Section 2. The plan shall be filed in the office of the engineer, or other proper office of the borough, and all subdivisions of property thereafter made shall conform thereto.

Section 3. The location of streets or alleys laid out by council shall not afterward be altered without the consent of council, and no map or plot of streets or alleys shall be entered in any public office of the county until approved by council.

(b) LOCATION OF STREETS.

Section 4. Boroughs may, by ordinance, locate streets and alleys, and include therein streets and alleys theretofore opened or used for highway purposes; and may locate streets or alleys theretofore opened or used for highway purposes, of a greater width; and may revise the lines of such streets or alleys in accordance therewith, and place the same on the general plan of such borough. (m) All subdivisions of property thereafter made shall conform thereto.

Section 5. No such location shall authorize the entry upon or appropriation of any property, within such located street or alley, not theretofore opened or used for highway purposes; nor shall the same interfere in any way with the rights of the owners to the full use of such property.

Section 6. No person shall recover any damages for the taking, for public use, of any buildings or improvements constructed within the lines of any located street or alley, after the same shall have been so located; and any such building or improvement shall be removed at the expense of the owner.

ing Rwy. Co., 135 Pa. 256, 26 W. N. C. 154, 47 L. I. 326. Where a proposed street is the boundary between two boroughs and the land owner in one dedicates land for a street, the other borough has authority to ordain an opening of an equal width. Butler Street, 2 Dist. 40, 6 Kulp 488.

(m) A borough has power to locate a street upon another one already opened, but not accepted. Fisher v. Lynch, 2 North. 330.

(a) GRADING, PAVING, REPAIRING, SIDEWALKS, CURBS, AND

GUTTERS.

The provisions of the Borough Code(n) relating to sidewalks are as follows:

Section 1. Boroughs may ordain and lay out sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and drains on the street of the borough. (0)

(n) Chapter VI, Article XI, of the Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 312. As to the power of Boroughs to Regulate Sidewalks prior to the Code and decisions thereon, see 1 Purd. Dig. (13th Ed.) 493, §§88-92. See also Vale's Dig. Vol. I, cols. 2648-2656; Vol. XI, cols. 1046; Vol. XIII, cols. 835-837. See also 5 Purd. Dig. (13th Ed.) 5361, note (a) same pages and sections. (0) The Act of April 11, 1899, P. L. 36 §4, 1 Purd. Dig. (13th Ed.) 164 §67, note (u), which authorized the construction of side paths, and the appointment of side path commissioners, was held unconstitutional as contravening Art. 3 §20 of the state constitution, 1 Purd. Dig. (13th Ed.) 164 §67, which provides that the general assembly shall not delegate to any special committee etc. power to make, supervise or interfere with any municipal improvements, etc. Commonwealth v. Smith, 9 Dist. 350; Keeler v. Westgate, 10 Dist. 240; Commonwealth v. Dauphin County Com

Section 2. Boroughs may ordain and lay out sidewalks, gutters, and drains upon the beds of turnpike roads or state highways, with the consent of companies controlling such turnpikes, or the state highway Commissioner.

Section 3. Boroughs may ordain and lay out sidewalks, gutters, and drains upon land abutting the sides of state highways, and upon land abutting the sides of public roads, where such roads are outside the borough limits, and the land upon which such sidewalks are to be laid out, if within the borough limits.

Section 4. Boroughs shall fix the width of all sidewalks; and may require the grading, paving, and repairing of sidewalks, and the constructing and repairing of curbs and gutters at the edge of sidewalks, by the owners of lots fronting thereon. (p)

missioners, 23 Pa. C. C. 646, 7 North. 255, 6 Lack. L. N. 151, 3 Dauphin 159; Porter v. Shields, 200 Pa. 241. It would seem that the power to grade and pave would include the power to curb. Schenley v. Commonwealth, 36 Pa. 29, 17 L. I. 196, 7 P. L. J. 377; Allegheny v. Blair, 74 Pa. 225, 1 Foster 377, 30 L. I. 360, 21 P. L. J. 401. Boroughs must keep sidewalks as well as streets in safe condition, and are liable to pedestrians for injuries caused through their neglect where there is no contributory negligence on the part of the traveler. Nanticoke Borough v. Warne, 106 Pa. 373, 16 W. N. C. 44. Boroughs may decide how much of a street is to be used for a carriage way and how much for sidewalks, and also where trees, when planted, shall be placed, how hitching posts shall be set, telegraph poles erected or passenger railways built. Nanticoke Borough v. Warne, 106 Pa. 373, 16 W. N. C. 44. An ordinance prohibiting the riding of bicycles on sidewalks on certain streets, without giving a bond, has been held to be unreasonable and not a valid exercise of police power Ordway v. Cornelius, 23 Pa. C. C. 281, though a borough, in the exercise of its police power may, by ordinance, prevent obstructions on its sidewalks by persons standing, loafing or congregating thereon, and provide for conviction on summary conviction. Commonwealth v. Challis, 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 130. The quarter sessions has exclusive jurisdiction to determine what injury has been occasioned by the regulation of foot walks under an ordinance, and its finding is not reviewable by the supreme court. Chartiers Borough's Appeal, 19 W. N. C. 46, 4 Sadler 464, 8 Atl. 181, 6 Cent. 173; Beechwood Avenue, 3 Montg. III. A borough ordinance, providing for paving a street and assessing the cost thereof upon abutting owners, must strictly follow the power conferred by statute. White v. Commonwealth, 37 L. I. 354, as when a borough takes property in an irregular manner and does work upon it, it is liable for damages for the trespass Brink v. Dunmore Borough, 174 Pa. 395, but there is no presumption that a borough intends to act unlawfully, and the proof must be clear to sustain an injunction. Ranck v. New Holland Borough, 14 Lanc. L. Rev. 197.

(p) Prior to the Act of May 16, 1891, P. L. 75, boroughs might direct sidewalks to be constructed of wood or other suitable material not unduly

Section 5. The borough may pay a portion of the cost and expense of grading and curbing sidewalks.

Section 6. Upon the neglect of any owner of lots to comply with the requirements as provided in the preceding sections of this article, the borough may, after notice, cause the grading, paving, repairing, curbing, and guttering to be done at the cost of such owner, and may collect the cost thereof and ten per centum additional, together with all charges and expenses, from such owner, and may file a municipal claim therefor or collect the same by action in assumpsit. (q)

expensive Oxford Borough v. Alexander, 2 Chest. 265, with power to require the property owners to relay sidewalks originally laid under a borough ordinance Smith v. Kingston Borough, 120 Pa. 357, 22 W. N. C. 164; Beltzhoover Borough v. Maple, 130 Pa. 335, and to file a lien for the expense upon the property owners' failure to repave after notice. Smith v. Kingston Borough, 120 Pa. 357, 22 W. N. C. 164. There is no appeal to the courts from the judgment of a municipality as to whether a sidewalk should be repaired and the character of repairs, and the time in which they should be made, such questions being exclusively for the municipality. Clopper v. Greensburg Borough, 48 P. L. J. 112, 9 Dist. 598. Boroughs have power to require lot owners to re-lay sidewalks originally laid under a borough ordinance Smith v. Kingston Borough, 120 Pa. 357, 22 W. N. C. 164; Beltzhoover Borough v. Maple, 130 Pa. 335, and may file a lien for re-paving a sidewalk upon the owner's failure after notice. Smith v. Kingston Borough, 120 Pa. 357, 22 W. N. C. 164. Boroughs may determine the limitations upon the sidewalks for cellar doors, doorsteps, awnings and projecting windows Livingston v. Wolf, 136 Pa. 519, 20 Atl. 551, 27 W. N. C. 5, 38 P. L. J. 221, 48 L. I. 16, but this must be accomplished by general and uniform regulations Reimer's Appeal, 100 Pa. 182, 30 P. L. J. 327, 10 Phila. 427, 32 L. I. 239, 12 W. N. C. 381, affirming Commonwealth v. Reimer, 15 Phila. 72, 39 L. I. 108, which regulations must be reasonable, the question of reasonableness being determined by the court. Kneedler v. Norristown Borough, 100 Pa. 368, 12 W. N. C. 37.

(q) Under the Act of April 20, 1905, P. L. 235 §1, it was held that when a borough notifies the property owner to construct a sidewalk in compliance with an ordinance passed under the provisions of this act, and the street has been opened and traveled as a public highway before it becomes a borough street, the property owner cannot justify his refusal to comply with the notice on the ground that the lines of the street have not been staked on the ground or that it has never been opened to its full width or on the ground that the sidewalk, which will eventually be laid on the opposite side of the street, will not conform in grade to the walk on the defendant's side, neither can he refuse on the ground that no grade line has been given him by the borough, where it appears that no grading is necessary, and, even though grading is necessary, the line could not have been procured from the borough regulator. Carlisle Borough v. Long, 47 Pa. Super. Ct. 628, 1911. Where an ordinance provides that the sidewalk may be made

Section 7. All such notices shall be served upon the owner of either of brick, concrete or asphalt block, a property owner may select any one of such pavements where the borough authorities have not specified the particular one, but where he neglects to comply with the notice, he cannot complain of the borough's selection of the most expensive material in constructing the pavement. Ibid. The Act of April 23, 1889, P. L. 44, gave the plaintiff the right to add five per cent. commission for attorney's fees where the assessment was not paid after notice. Ashley Borough v. Smith, 8 Kulp 60. Under the Acts of May 24, 1901, P. L. 297, and June 4, 1901, P. L. 366, it would seem that notice had to be given before the work can be done or charged against the owners Hammell v. Morrisville Borough, 3 Pa. C. C. 185, 1 Del. 158, and a notice to pave is an adoption of the existing grade. Dickson v. Meadville, 23 P. L. J. 127. Under the Act of 1851, property owners were not bound to pay for the grading of a foot way on a new street Steelton Borough v. Booser, 162 Pa. 630, and claims for paving sidewalks must be filed within thirty days Youngsville Borough v. Siggins, 110 Pa. 291, so it was held that the remedy given by that act was not taken away by the Act of May 16, 1891, P. L. 75. Jenkintown Borough v. Firmstone, 9 Lanc. L. Rev. 406, 9 Montg. 173, 8 Montg. 175, 2 Dist. 124, 12 Pa. C. C. 219, 3 North. 299. The description of the premises must be very defective for the court to strike off a lien for such improvements. Jenkintown Borough v. Firmstone, 9 Lanc. L. Rev. 406, 9 Montg. 173, 8 Montg. 175, 2 Dist. 124, 12 Pa. C. C. 219, 3 North. 299. The borough may file a lien for the expense upon the property owner's failure to repave after notice. Smith v. Kingston Borough, 120 Pa. 357, 22 W. N. C. 164.

Where a borough has not established a paper grade of a street it is the duty of the abutting owner when called upon to rebuild a sidewalk, to construct the same at the then existing grade of the old sidewalk. Canton Borough v. Williams, 67 Pa. Super. Ct. 239. An ordinance, requiring property owners to repair sidewalks and charging them with the cost of repair made by the borough in case of their neglect after five days' notice, is valid. Canton Borough v. Williams, 67 Pa. Super. Ct. 239. Where the legislature confers upon a municipality the power to pass an ordinance to compel property owners to repair a sidewalk, an ordinance passed pursuant thereto cannot be impeached as invalid on the ground that it would have been regarded as unreasonable if passed under the incidental power of the corporation or under a grant of power general in its nature. Canton Borough v. Williams, 67 Pa. Super. Ct. 239. Where a property owner neglects to make the repairs after notice, he cannot, in an action by the borough to recover the costs of repairs, defend on the ground that the time given was not reasonable where, after receiving the notice, the owner informed the borough officials that he would not make the repairs as the property was farm land not suitable for building purposes. Canton Borough v. Williams, 67 Pa. Super. Ct. 239. Where the owner is placed in a position where it is his duty to speak he will be held to have waived any objection that the time allowed to make repairs was insufficient. Canton Borough v. Williams, 67 Pa. Super. Ct. 239. The property owner cannot defend on the ground that the street was not a public highway, where the