Bloom v. Washington County
| Citation | 307 Pa. 200,160 A. 855 |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1932 |
| Docket Number | 66 |
| Parties | Bloom, Appellant, v. Washington County |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Argued March 21, 1932
Appeal, No. 66, March T., 1931, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. Washington Co., Feb. T., 1930, No. 92, entering judgment for defendant, on questions of law raised by affidavit of defense, in case of George I. Bloom v. Washington County. Affirmed.
Questions of law raised by affidavit of defense. Before BROWNSON, P.J CUMMINS and HUGHES, JJ.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Judgment for defendant in opinion by CUMMINS, J.
Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was judgment, quoting it.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed at appellant's costs.
Meyer Goldfarb, with him I. C. Bloom, for appellant.
Norman E. Clark, for appellee.
Before FRAZER, C.J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from judgment entered for defendant upon an affidavit of defense in the nature of a demurrer in an action of assumpsit upon a contract of employment of which the facts were as follows: In accordance with a written request that a member of the bar be assigned to act as counsel for the prothonotary, clerk of courts, register of wills, coroner treasurer and recorder of deeds of Washington County, the county commissioners appointed plaintiff to the position, and by separate action, sitting as the salary board with the county controller and the respective officers, designated the salary to be paid him for his services. Since 1920 Washington County has been a county of the fourth class. Plaintiff rendered professional services for a period of twenty-two months without compensation, whereupon this action was instituted against the county to recover the sum of $2,750 -- the salary fixed for the period indicated. The court below sustained the statutory demurrer filed on behalf of the county commissioners, and the present appeal by plaintiff raises the question whether there can be recovery upon the aforementioned employment.
The legislature has never provided for the appointment of a solicitor to the offices for which plaintiff rendered his services. The Act of March 31, 1876, P.L. 13, section 7 provides that the salary board may determine the number of deputies or clerks required for the proper dispatch of business by each of such officers, and fix the salary of each of the clerks and deputies, but it...
To continue reading
Request your trial