
    Clarion Borough Petition.
    
      Appealsi — Constitutional question — (Record—Superior Court — ■ Statement of questions involved.
    
    Au appeal from the Superior Court based upon an alleged constitutional question will be dismissed, where neither the statement of questions involved, the assignments of error, nor the opinion of the Superior Court mentions or indicates a constitutional point.
    Argued September 28, 1922.
    Appeal, No. 17, Oct. T., 1922, by P. X. Myer et al., from judgment of Superior Court, April T., 1921, No. 104, affirming order of C. P. Clarion Co., May T., 1920, No. 91, dismissing exceptions to report of viewers in the matter of the Petition of Clarion Borough for appointment of viewers to make assessment for municipal improvement.
    October 20, 1922:
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Appeal from order of Superior Court: see 77 Pa. Superior Ct. 429.
    The opinion of the Supeme Court states the case.
    Appeal affirmed. F. X. Myer et al., property owners, appealed.
    
      Error assigned was, inter alia, order, quoting it.
    
      Geo. F. Whitmer, with him Corbett & Rugh, for appellants.
    
      W. J. Geary, for appellee, was not heard.
   Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the Superior Court, allowed because a constitutional question was alleged to be involved; but the record shows no such point presented to that tribunal. Neither the statement of questions involved, the assignments of error in, nor the opinion of, the Superior Court mentions, or indicates, a constitutional point. Under such circumstances appellants have no standing to be heard in this court: Chartiers Creek Bridge, 235 Pa. 365.

The appeal is dismissed at the cost of appellants.  