Commonwealth v. City of Philadelphia

• Decision Date: 01 January 1856
• Parties: The Commonwealth versus The City of Philadelphia.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 497

27 Pa. 497

The Commonwealth versus The City of Philadelphia.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Franklin, Attorney-General, for Commonwealth.—The 32d section of the Act of 29th April, 1844, subjects all public stocks or loans whatsoever to taxation except those issued by the Commonwealth. Can it be doubted that the loan of the guardians of the poor was a public stock loan? It was a public corporation: Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 629; Rundle v. The Delaware and Raritan Canal, 1 Wall, Jr. 276. The 42d section of the above recited act directs that the treasurers of the municipal corporations shall assess and retain the tax, when the interest is paid, and pay it over to the state treasurer.

It is contended that these loanholders are not within the act. They are not named in terms; but they come within the intention and spirit of the act as interpreted by this court: Philadelphia Saving Fund v. Yard, 9 Barr 359; Spangler v. York County, 1 Harris 322; Berks County v. Bertolett, Id. 522; Insurance Company v. Yard, 5 Id. 331. The loanholders have put a construction upon the act themselves, by neglecting to have it assessed as other property. The expression, a treasurer of a district, may very properly be construed as the treasurer of a public corporation, having authority within distinct district limits: Commonwealth v. Morrison, C. P., Dauphin county, MS.

But, if the assessment and retention were irregular, it has been waived by acquiescence: Allentown v. Saeger, 8 Harris 421. In this case the loanholders protested, but did not follow up the protest by bringing suit, and in the mean time omit to return their stock for assessment, as required by the 42d sect. Act 29th April, 1844, and 4th sect. Act 22d April, 1846.

H. J. Williams, for the defendant.—In England the care of the poor was not devolved upon the municipal corporations. They were cared for by the parish overseers, appointed by two justices of the peace, and these overseers assessed the poor rates. In Pennsylvania the same distinction has been maintained. No corporation established for municipal purposes has been charged with the support of the poor. The directors or overseers were always distinct in their authorities and jurisdictions from the county and township organizations. The proprietary charter to the city of Philadelphia conferred no authority to levy taxes for the support of the poor.

The Act of 22d February, 1717-18, § 3, provided a system for the counties of Philadelphia, Chester, and Bucks. The respective Quarter Sessions appointed the officers to have the charge of the poor, and regulated the levy of taxes for their support. The regulations for the poor of Philadelphia were different from other portions of the state. Considerable provision was made by private charity. In 1776 the contributors to this fund were incorporated by the name of "Contributors to the relief and employment of the poor in the city of Philadelphia:" a loan was authorized, and the taxes levied for the relief of the poor were paid over to them. In 1779 the legislature appointed certain persons by name as managers of this corporation, the occupation of the city by British troops having rendered an election impossible. And in 1782 enacted that in the event of a failure to elect managers, the overseers of the poor should become a body corporate by the name of "the guardians of the poor in the city of Philadelphia."

In 1803 the system was remodelled by the creation of a corporation called "The Guardians of the Poor of the city of Philadelphia, the district of Southwark, and the township of the Northern Liberties." The estates of the poor corporations were transferred to them, and they were authorized to levy, assess, and collect taxes. This corporation continued until it was merged with other public corporations in the consolidated city in 1854. They were authorized by the Act of 1828 to contract a loan.

Their duties were limited to the reception, maintenance, and employment of the poor. They were an eleemosynary corporation to distribute such sums as were paid over to them by the municipal corporations, or derived from their estates, or the labour of the poor under their charge. The money in suit did not come from the municipalities. The loan was by authority of an Act of Assembly. The guardians made the loan, and the faith of their corporation was pledged for its payment. They stipulated to pay the interest, and without a specific enactment for that purpose they were not justified in paying less.

The authority to tax must be found in an Act of Assembly, and cannot be implied by a strained construction: Permanent Bridge v. Trustees, 13 S. & R. 422; Blickensderfer v. School Directors, 8 Harris 38.

The only source of authority claimed is the Act of 1844. In that it is only "the treasurers of each county, incorporated city, district, and borough of this Commonwealth," that are authorized to retain the tax. Unless, therefore, the guardians come within this category, it cannot be claimed...