Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

Hano v. r Borough

Taxation — Amusements — Bowling — Words and Phrases — "Admission" — "Engaging in" — Ejusdem generis.

In this case, in which it appeared that a borough ordinance, which defined "admission" as a monetary charge for the privilege of attending or engaging in amusements, and "amusement" as all manner and form of entertainment, including, but not limited to, theatrical performances, operatic performances, motion picture exhibitions, carnivals, shows, concerts, lectures and sports events, imposed a tax upon the sale of admissions to any amusement within the borough; that defendants, who owned and operated bowling lanes in the borough, contended that, since the ordinance listed a number of specific forms of entertainment, all of which were of the spectator type as opposed to the type in which there is a participation, the rule of ejusdem generis required the exclusion of bowling; and that the court below, holding that such a strict construction would render meaningless the phrase "engaging in" in the definition of "admission" in the ordinance, that the doctrine of ejusdem generis was not applicable because it was not the intention of the borough council to restrict the application of the tax to admisions to spectator events, and that bowling was an amusement within the meaning of the ordinance, entered judgment against defendants; it was Held that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.

Argued March 8, 1965.

OPINION PER CURIAM, March 18, 1965:

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge ATKINS, for the court below, reported at 35 Pa. D. C. 2d 203.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HANOVER BORO. v. CRISWELL et al
(Mar 18, 1965)