Burns v. Clarion County

• Decision Date: 01 November 1869
• Citation: 62 Pa. 422
• Parties: Burns <I>versus</I> Clarion County.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

62 Pa. 422

Burns versus Clarion County.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 20, 1869.

November 1, 1869.

October 20th 1869.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and WILLIAMS, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion county: No. 191, to October and November Term 1869.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

W. P. Jenks (with whom were T. S. Wilson and G. W. Lathy), for plaintiff in error.

W. L. Corbett (with whom was J. T. Hindman), for defendant in error.—Money paid voluntarily cannot be recovered back: Hospital v. Philadelphia, 12 Harris 229; Brown v. McKinally, 1 Esp. R. 279; Beach v. Vandenburgh, 10 Johns. R. 361; Overseers of Mamakating, 14 Id. 87. The duties of county auditors are judicial: Northampton v. Yohe, 12 Harris 307. Permitting the report of 1862 to pass without appeal, and paying the balance, is conclusive, and vests a right with which the legislature should not interfere: Ervine's Appeal, 4 Harris 266. It has no judicial power to open a judgment: Baggs's Appeal, 7 Wright 512; DeChastellux v. Fairchild, 3 Harris 18.

The opinion of the court was delivered, November 1st 1869, by THOMPSON, C. J.

The civil and geographical divisions of the state into counties, townships and cities, &c., had its origin in the necessities and convenience of the people; but this does not withdraw these municipal divisions from supervision and control by the state in matters of internal government. The legislature often exercises the right to exempt property liable to taxation, and in other instances increases the liability to taxation. It changes county sites, and orders roads to be opened and bridges to be built at the expense of the counties. No one disputes the exercise of such powers by the legislature. There is nothing in the constitution which expressly or impliedly forbids such interference; nor anything which forbids its interference with the accounting officers of a county, so far as to the mode and manner to be pursued in settling, and what shall constitute a finality in the settlement of public accounts. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the Act of Assembly of the 8th April 1864, "for the relief of James T. Burns, late treasurer of Clarion county," directing the opening and resettlement of his accounts, by the county auditors, on equitable grounds, is entirely within the power of the legislature.

The idea advanced that their former settlement is to be regarded as a decision standing on the footing of a judicial decision, is an entire mistake. The auditors are not judicial officers in any sense. They act ministerially, and the finality of their action rests on positive enactment, and is not inherent, like judicial action. The legislature cannot, it is true, assume the functions of the judiciary. That is settled in many cases, amongst which are De Chastellux v. Fairchild, 12 Harris 18, and Baggs's Appeal, 7 Wright 512, and other later cases to the same effect. The plain reason is that the legislature possess no ordinary judicial powers any more than does the judiciary possess legislative. Hence, in the first of the above cases it was held that an Act of Assembly directing a court to grant a new trial was void. This overruled a heresy which had crept into the case of Braddee v. Brownfield, 2 W. & S. 271. Having the power to direct the county auditors to open the settlement of the late treasurer's accounts and readjust and resettle them, the legislature also possessed the right assuredly further to express, with binding effect, the purpose in view in opening the settlement; and it did this by requiring the auditors, with the approval of the county commissioners, to open the settlement of his accounts "and resettle and equitably adjust the same." An equitable adjustment was the object.

It must be presumed the legislature, in passing this act, was made acquainted with the fact, that Burns had some claim which was not enforcable at law, and which, if established, might be an equitable ground of relief, and ought to be allowed by the accounting officers; therefore the direction to open and so resettle his accounts. That justice might be fully done on this basis more certainly, there is a provision for an appeal as in original cases of auditors' settlements.

The auditors opened the settlement, and closed it after a hearing, without affording any relief to Burns. If the case had ended here, we would be bound to infer that no equitable grounds for a change of the former settlement had been shown by him. But he appealed, and, on the trial of the appeal, we see what the equity he claimed was, and what we must suppose was shown to the legislature, and moved its action.

The case was tried on an issue ordered by the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion county, wherein the "county of Clarion was made plaintiff and James T. Burns, late treasurer of said county, defendant," who, under the plea of payment, was to give "all matters of defence in evidence, or matter entitling him to a balance in his favor."

On the trial of this issue, the defendant gave evidence...