American Hospital Sup. Corp. v. York County Inst. Dist.
Decision Date | 28 July 1954 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 4744. |
Citation | 123 F. Supp. 187 |
Parties | AMERICAN HOSPITAL SUPPLY CORP. v. YORK COUNTY INSTITUTION DIST. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
McClean Stock, York, Pa., for plaintiff.
John F. Rauhauser, Jr., York, Pa., for defendant.
Plaintiff alleges that it is an Illinois corporation duly qualified to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; that "Defendant, York County Institution District, is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, being co-terminus with the County of York, Pennsylvania, its executive board having its offices at the Court House, York, Pennsylvania;" that plaintiff entered into a written agreement to supply to the defendant certain furnishings and equipment (a copy of the contract being attached to the complaint); that plaintiff submitted a statement for the amount due and owing (a copy thereof being attached to the complaint); and that the "architect" supplied to defendant a final certificate, as required by the contract.
Defendant, as its first defense, contends that the action is essentially against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and therefore within the prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff, on the other hand, on the basis of the pleadings, supplemented by affidavits and stipulation, has filed a motion for summary judgment.
The county institution districts were created by an Act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania which provided, inter alia, that
(1) "Each county, as herein defined, is hereby created a district to be known as `. . . . . . County Institution District,' which district shall be a body corporate * * *." 62 P.S. § 2251.
(2) "The commissioners of each county shall be the executive and administrative officers of the institution district of that county, and the county treasurer shall be its treasurer. * * *" 62 P.S. § 2252.
(3) "For the purposes of the institution district and for the payment of the obligations of the predecessor poor district, the commissioners of each county shall have the power to levy and collect on real estate, trades, occupations and professions, in the same manner and at the same time as county taxes, an annual tax, to pay the current expense of the institution district, not exceeding ten mills on the dollar of the last adjusted assessed valuation for county purposes. * * *" 62 P.S. § 2257.
As pointed out in Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Welsh, 3 Cir., 188 F.2d 447, 450,
Defendant concedes that "it is well established that independent self-governing municipal entities such as counties are considered as citizens for the purpose of diversity, Lincoln County v. Luning, 1890, 133 U.S. 529 10 S.Ct. 363, 33 L.Ed. 766; Pearl River County Miss. v. Wyatt Lumber Co. 5 Cir., 1921, 270 F. 26, 27; Board of Commissioners of Jackson County, Kansas v. U. S. 10 Cir., 100 F.2d 929, as are cities, City of Long Beach v. Metcalf 9 Cir., 1939, 103 F.2d 483; and as are state supported public corporations, Hopkins v. Clemson Agricultural College, 1910, 221 U.S. 636 31 S.Ct. 654, 55 L.Ed. 890." However, it seeks to differentiate county institution districts in that , and that furthermore the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that "a county institution district is a state agency performing a governmental function", citing Heilig Bros. Co., Inc. v. Kohler, 1950, 366 Pa. 72, 77, 76 A.2d 613, 616; Davis v. Carbon County, 369 Pa. 322, 330, 85 A.2d 862.
Even if defendant's interpretation of the statements by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania were correct, it would not be decisive of the question. The doctrine is aptly stated by Judge Sanborn in State Highway Commission in Arkansas v. Kansas City Bridge Co., 8 Cir., 81 F.2d 689, 690, as follows:
* * *"1
Nor would a state statute have such effect. In Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 10 S.Ct. 363, 364, 33 L.Ed. 766, the Supreme Court stated:
"* * * "
The converse situation is, of course, where the State has held that an agency is not such a State instrumentality as would be entitled to immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.2 Such a decision is in effect a waiver by the State of its immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. In an analogous situation concerning the effect of a lien created by a State law, the Supreme Court in United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank, 1950, 340 U.S. 47, 71 S.Ct. 111, 113, 95 L.Ed. 53, said:
However, to say that the defendant is a State agency performing governmental function or that it is a State instrumentality is not the equivalent of saying that it is entitled to the immunity of the Eleventh Amendment. In Hopkins v. Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina, 221 U.S. 636, 645, 31 S. Ct. 654, 657, 55 L.Ed....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walls v. City of New York
...State of Oklahoma ex rel. Williams v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Corporation, 10 Cir., 1936, 83 F.2d 986; American Hospital Sup. Corp. v. York County Inst. Dist., D.C.Pa.1954, 123 F.Supp. 187. The City of New York is a citizen of the State of New York for purposes of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 144......
-
Lowes v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
...the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has so referred to the Commission. As was pointed out by this Court in American Hospital Supply Corp. v. York County Institution District, supra, such statements in the statutes and opinions of the State courts3 are not decisive of the question and not the ......
-
Pyramid Corp. v. DeSoto County Board of Supervisors, DC 72-16-S.
...self-governing entities such as counties are considered citizens for the purposes of diversity. American Hospital Supply Corp. v. York County Institution District, 123 F.Supp. 187 (M.D.Pa.1964). Constitutional immunity from suit runs only to the states themselves and not to political subdiv......
-
United States v. Bowers, 961.
... ... C-7 in Coffee County, Alabama, within the jurisdiction of this court ... ...