
    Rubright v. City of Pittsburgh.
    
      Constitutional law — Act of May 16,1891.
    The act of May 16, 1891, P. L. 71, is constitutional. See Donley v. Pittsburgh, supra.
    Argued Jan. 22, 1892.
    Appeal, No. 49, Oct. T., 1892, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., March T., 1892, No. 263, dismissing a bill in equity.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell and Heydrick, JJ.
    Bill in equity by Noah Rubright against the city of Pittsburgh. The facts were similar to those in Donley v. Pittsburgh, supra.
    
      Johns Mo Cleave, for appellant.
    
      W C. Moreland and J. H. White, with them T. D. Carnahan, for appellee.
    February 8, 1892.
   Per Curiam,

The only question raised in this case is the constitutionality of the act of May 16, 1891, commonly known as the “ New Street Act.” This matter was considered and decided in Donley’s Appeal, and need not be further discussed.

The decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.  