She  has  thus  benefited  him,  and  it  is  but  just  that  the  duty  of  repair
should  now  devolve  upon  him.  To  this  extent  we  may,  I  think,  con¬
clude  that  the  Act  of  March  25,  1848,  under  which  this  proceeding
took  place,  is  constitutional:  Pamph.  L.,  1848,  p.  250.  Its  title  is
fairly  descriptive  of  its  true  purpose,  though  the  Act  having  been
passed  before  the  constitutional  amendment  of  1864,  the  title  has  not
the  same  force  in  interpretation  it  would  have  since.  It  is  entitled,
"An  Act  to  provide  for  the  repairs  of  the  meadow  banks  upon  the
Delaware  front  in  the  county  of  Philadelphia  above  the  city  of  Phil¬
adelphia,”  etc.  The  purpose  of  the  Act  was  to  compel  repairs  of  ex¬
isting  meadow  banks,  not  to  construct  them.  The  only  question,
therefore,  remaining  is  whether  the  Act  has  furnished  a  constitutional
mode  of  proceeding  to  bind  the  owner  of  the  land  to  the  payment  of
the  expense  of  the  repairs.  The  following  are  all  its  material  provi¬
sions:  "It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  commissioners  *  *  *  upon

complaint  by  any  person  owning  property  fronting  upon  such  river,
or  liable  to  be  damaged  by  the  overflow  of  the  same,  that  said  banks,
or  any  part  thereof,  are  out  of  repair,  or  in  an  unsafe  or  insecure  con¬
dition,  to  give  notice  forthwith  to  the  owner  or  owners  of  such  part
or  portion  to  repair  the  same  within  forty-eight  hours  after  such  no-
t'ce>  '  '  '  an^  in  case  such  owner  or  owners  shall  neglect  or

-  refuse  to  cause  such  repairs  to  be  made  within  the  time  aforesaid

vj/  •  |  |

it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  commissioners  to  cause  the  said
banks  to  be  well  and  thoroughly  repaired,  &c.,  and  they  shall  enter
the  same  as  lien  against  the  said  premises  and  the  owners  thereof.”


33


The  law  then  provides  for  a  scire  facias  to  enforce  payment,  and  de¬
clares  "that  upon  the  trial  of  such  action,  the  said  defendant  shall
only  be  permitted  to  aver  and  prove  in  defence  that  the  lien,  in  whole
or  in  part,  has  been  paid  since  the  same  was  filed,  and  that  all  mat¬
ters  necessary  for  a  recovery  on  part  of  the  plaintiffs  shall  be  consid¬
ered  as  proved  by  the  production  of  the  lien  and  scire  facias  thereon
at  the  time  of  trial.
