City of Philadelphia v. Hemphill

• Decision Date: 20 April 1966
• Citation: 218 A.2d 770,421 Pa. 489
• Parties: CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and Paul D'Ortona, President of City Council, v. Alexander HEMPHILL, City Controller, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 770

218 A.2d 770

421 Pa. 489

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and Paul D'Ortona, President of City Council, v. Alexander HEMPHILL, City Controller, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 20, 1966.

Alexander Hemphill, in pro. per., Gilbert Stein, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Edward G. Bauer, Jr., City Sol., for appellee.

Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment affirmed.

BELL, Chief Justice (dissenting).

It is unfortunate that this question and issue were not amicably resolved by the parties and the doubts and fears of the Controller, as to whether the proposed loan was for "capital" expenditures, removed. With a little give and take, this could easily have been done.

The Act of June 25, 1919, P.L. 581, as amended July 11, 1923, 53 P.S. 12558, pertinently provides:

"It shall be lawful for such city to borrow money or incur debt, in accordance with the terms of existing law, for the purpose of acquiring property, erecting buildings, *** or for any other improvements of a permanent or a temporary kind, or for capital outlay of any kind: *** Provided, that all of the such proposed expenditures *** are *** certified to the Council by the City Controller to be capital expenditures as distinguished from current expenses, prior to the authorization of such debt ***. The certificate of the City Controller shall be final and conclusive as to the character of the proposed expenditures ***."

It is crystal clear that the statute gives the Controller discretion to determine whether proposed expenditures are "capital" expenditures as distinguished from current expenditures, and further provides that the Controller's certificate shall be final and conclusive as to the character of the proposed expenditures. This is not merely a ministerial duty, this is a duty coupled with a discretion.

"Mandamus lies to compel a ministerial act but not to review discretion, except where it is arbitrarily or fraudulently exercised or where it is based upon a mistaken view of the law: Garratt v. [ City of] Philadelphia, 387 Pa. 442, 448, 127 A.2d 738; Travis v. Teter, 370 Pa. 326, 330, 87 A.2d 177; Maxwell v. Farrell School District Board of Directors, 381 Pa. 561, 566, 112 A.2d 192." Commonwealth v. Caplan, 411 Pa. 563, 567-568, 192 A.2d 894, 896. Accord: Commercial Properties, Inc. v. Peternel, 418 Pa. 304, 309, 211 A.2d 514.

On the present state of the record I find no arbitrary or fraudulent exercise of...