Commonwealth, to Use of Clarion County v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
| Decision Date | 02 March 1908 |
| Docket Number | 67,65,66 |
| Citation | 69 A. 550,220 Pa. 148 |
| Parties | Commonwealth to use v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 18, 1907
Appeals, Nos. 65, 66 and 67, Oct. T., 1907, by defendant from orders of C.P. Clarion Co., Aug. T., 1907, No. 126, 127 and 128, making absolute rule for judgments for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Commonwealth to use of the county of Clarion, at the suggestion and for the use of the Clarion County Poor District v. The United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company. Reversed.
Assumpsit on the official bond of county commissioners.
Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before WILSON, P.J.
Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
The assignment of error in each case is sustained and each judgment is reversed.
Don C Corbett, with him H. E. Rugh, for appellant. -- The duties performed by the commissioners as poor officers were different from, and did not belong to, their office as commissioners of the county: Jenks Tp. v. Sheffield Tp., 135 Pa. 400; Melvin v. Summerville, 210 Pa. 41.
The law is well settled in the United States that sureties are not liable for after-imposed duties which cannot be presumed to have entered into the contemplation of the parties at the time the bond was executed: 2 Brandt, Suretyship & Guaranty, sec. 660; Gaussen v. United States, 97 U.S. 584; United States v. Kirkpatrick, 22 U.S. 720; United States v. Powell, 81 U.S. 493; United States v. Singer, 82 U.S. 111; Board of Supervisors of Monroe County v. Clark, 92 N.Y. 391; Hatch v. Inhabitants of Attleborough, 97 Mass. 533; State v. Roberts, 68 Missouri, 234; Schuster v. Weiss, 114 Mo. 158 (21 S.W. Repr. 438); Governor v. Ridgway, 12 Ill. 14; Compher v. People, 12 Ill. 290; People v. Tompkins, 74 Ill. 482.
The powers of county auditors are purely statutory. Such officers have no common-law jurisdiction: Schuylkill County v. Minogue, 160 Pa. 164; Glatfelter v. Com., 74 Pa. 74; Siggins v. Com., 85 Pa. 278.
A settlement of a treasurer's account by the county auditors is conclusive only where the latter has jurisdiction in the premises: Schuylkill County v. Minogue, 160 Pa. 164; Lehigh County v. Gossler, 24 Pa.Super. 406.
H. M. Rimer, with him J. T. Reinsel and F. J. Maffett, for appellee. -- The poor district and the county and their officers, are but parts of the machinery which constitutes the public system, and are no more a division of the government than the allotment of certain officers to particular localities: Freeze v. County of Columbia, 6 W.N.C. 145; Commonwealth v. Brice, 22 Pa. 211.
The authorities are agreed, that for all acts of the principal done, virtute officii, the surety is liable, provided, of course, the sureties' undertaking extends to all the duties of the office: Wylie v. Gallagher et al., 46 Pa. 205; United States v. Thomas, 82 U.S. 337; Com. v. Toms, 45 Pa. 408; Com. to use v. Singer, 31 Pa.Super. 597.
The county auditors had jurisdiction of the accounts of the county commissioners relating to the poor district: Bank v. Com., 10 Pa. 442; Glatfelter v. Com., 74 Pa. 74.
Where the jurisdiction of the county auditors attaches to an office, it is exclusive and original, -- unappealed from, it is final: Northumberland County v. Bloom, 3 W. & S. 542; Northampton County v. Yohe, 24 Pa. 305; Commissioners of Lycoming v. Lycoming County, 46 Pa. 496; Blackmore v. Allegheny County, 51 Pa. 160; Northampton County v. Herman, 119 Pa. 373; Schuylkill Co. v. Boyer, 125 Pa. 226; Westmoreland County v. Fisher, 172 Pa. 317; Spangler v. Com., 8 Watts, 57; McMicken v. Com., 58 Pa. 213.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.
These three appeals, argued together, are from judgments entered against the appellant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in suits brought against it as surety on the official bonds of J. A. Summerville, G. W. Texter and J. S. Saxton, county commissioners of the county of Clarion. The condition of each bond was that the principal would faithfully discharge all duties imposed on him by law as such commissioner and faithfully and legally appropriate all county and other moneys which he, as such commissioner, should have authority to draw out of the county treasury upon checks or orders given by him, or the county commissioners of Clarion county, or over which he or they might have control.
By the Act of June 4, 1879, P.L. 78, creating poor districts, the county of Clarion became Clarion county poor district. This poor district is a separate quasi municipal corporation: Melvin v. Summerville, 210 Pa. 41. Such real estate as is needed to carry out the designs and purposes of the act creating the district is required to be taken in its name as the "Clarion County Poor District," and the moneys needed for its maintenance are raised by taxes assessed, levied and collected upon a separate basis, termed by the act, "taxation for poor purposes." The county commissioners, upon whom are now imposed the duties formerly performed by overseers of the poor, are required to keep accounts of all moneys received by them in any way, as well as paid out for the maintenance of the poor district, and these accounts are audited by the county auditors. The county treasurer, who is made ex officio treasurer of the poor district, pays out its moneys on warrants drawn by the commissioners. His accounts as treasurer of the district are audited by the county auditors "in accordance with the laws relating to accounts of county treasurer." Upon what the Clarion county poor district alleges in its statement was an audit of the accounts of the county commissioners of the moneys received and paid out by them for the poor district in the year 1905, filed in the court of common pleas of the county, and unappealed from, these suits were brought, and the court, having been of opinion that such report was conclusive of the liability of the principal in each bond, entered the judgments from which we have these appeals. The report of the county auditors seems to have been regarded by the parties to the suits and the court as a part of the statement in each case, though not formally made so, and we shall, therefore, so regard it, that we may now determine its effect upon the county commissioners in their disbursement of the funds of the poor district for the year 1905.
The certificate appended to the report of the auditors is as follows: "We, the undersigned Auditors of Clarion County, do certify that in pursuance of the Act of Assembly passed the 15th day of April, 1834, an Act relating to Counties,...
To continue reading
Request your trial