Brown v. White Deer Township

• Decision Date: 01 January 1856
• Parties: Brown versus White Deer Township.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

27 Pa. 109

Brown versus White Deer Township.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Union county.

Miller, for plaintiff in error.—The refusal of the auditors to pass upon the account of the plaintiff, or to make a record of it among their proceedings, left him nothing to appeal from.

The settlement and allowance of the small account in 1850, was entirely unconnected with the matter now in dispute. How could there be an appeal when there was no action taken by the auditors? Union County v. Glover, 3 Barr 406; Leasure v. Mahoning, 8 Watts 551; Act 15th April, 1834, § 104.

The cases of Willard v. Parker, 1 Rawle 448, and Porter v. School Directors, 6 Harris 44, relied on by the defendants, are distinguishable from this case in this, that there was here no adjudication of the matter by the auditors, and nothing to appeal from.

Carney v. Wheatfield, 4 W. & Ser. 215, decides that an action may be maintained by a supervisor for the amount found to be due him by the auditors. Is he then to be barred of his action because the auditors refuse to settle his account?

Linn and J. M. Linn, for defendants in error.—It was the duty of Brown to have presented his account under oath to the auditors; if not allowed, he had his remedy by appeal. Carney v. Wheatfield, 4 W. & Ser. 215, decides that the auditors can settle the accounts of supervisors whose term of office has expired. He could have had his account settled at any time.

Act of 15th April, 1834, §§ 90, 102-3-4-5; Porter v. School Directors, 6 Harris 144; Willard v. Parker, 1 Rawle 450, decide that the Act of Assembly must be strictly pursued by the supervisors, and the settlement of the auditors is conclusive unless appealed from.

This would be so under the Act of 21st March, 1806, § 13, which applies as well to civil as to criminal proceedings: 14 Ser. & R. 165; 6 Watts 387; 2 Dall. 231; 1 Yeates 533; 5 W. & Ser. 555; 1 Rawle 273; 7 Barr 417.

The opinion of the court was delivered by KNOX, J.

We see no good reason for reversing the judgment of the Common Pleas upon the special verdict. Where a supervisor has a claim against his township for services rendered, or money expended, it should be presented to the auditors for allowance, and if refused his only remedy is by appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. A common law action will not lie, as there is a specific remedy provided by statute. The money claimed in this suit was paid partly in February and the balance in May, 1849. A...