Commonwealth v. Hutchinson
| Decision Date | 05 July 1849 |
| Citation | 10 Pa. 466 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH <I>v.</I> HUTCHINSON. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Briggs and Parke, for plaintiff in error.—The money was received in a fiduciary capacity, and hence the creditor was not within the act. It was money received, clothed with an express trust by the acts of Assembly. Debts due by auctioneers, have been held fiduciary within the act: 5 L. Rep. 258, and hence not barred; 7 Met. 424; 5 L. Rep. 264-7.
McCormick, contrà.—The debt due was similar to those of an agent or factor, and which are discharged by the act: 6 Humph. 154; 6 Ohio, 58. The act of 1845, extends only to persons then or thereafter to be defaulting officers; hence the jurisdiction failed.
July 5. ROGERS, J.
We agree with the learned judge, that the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin county has jurisdiction over this case, and that the act of limitations cannot avail the defendant. That time does not run against the commonwealth, is ruled in Johnston v. Irwin, 3 S. & R. 292, and Bagley v. Wallace, 16 S. & R. 245. And as to the jurisdiction of the court, although the case may not come within the 12th section of the act of the 16th April, 1845 — which, however, we do not decide — yet, the 16th section would appear to have had in view a case similarly circumstanced with the present. That section directs the state treasurer and auditor-general to cause suits to be brought against all persons and their sureties, in the county of Dauphin, who are now defaulters to the commonwealth, and were officers and sureties such as are mentioned in the 12th section. The words "were officers and sureties," bring the defendant's case within the letter of the act, and could have been introduced for no other conceivable purpose than to embrace this case. Nor can we conceive any reason why the defendant should be exempted from the operation of the act. He was an officer such as is contemplated in the 12th section, and he failed to pay over the state's share of the tax which he received after the termination of his office. He is a public defaulter, as well in the popular sense as within the meaning of the 12th section.
But, although we agree as to the two first points, we differ in the last. We are of opinion, debts due the commonwealth are not barred by the bankrupt certificate. The point was first ruled in the English Statutes of Bankruptcy, in an anonymous case reported in 1 Atk. 262. A bankrupt, as is there held, though he has conformed in every respect to the acts relating to bankruptcy, cannot be discharged from a commitment under an extent of the crown. The Lord Chancellor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. J. W. Bishop & Co., Inc.
...also Frey's Estate, 342 Pa. 351, 21 A.2d 23 (1941); Commonwealth v. Central Realty Co., 338 Pa. 172, 12 A.2d 312 (1940); Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 10 Pa. 466 (1849); Glover v. Wilson, 6 Pa. 290 (1847); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 6 Pa. 136 (1847); McKeehan v. Commonwealth, 3 Pa. 151 The same......
-
State v. Foster
...ex parte, 2 Ves. & B., 394; People v. Rossiter, 4 Cow., 143; People v. Herkimer, 4 Cow., 345; Saunders v. Com., 10 Gratt., 494; Com. v. Hutchinson, 10 Pa. 466; Clemens v. Camden, 51 N.J.L. 426; Greeley Prov. Sav. B'k, 98 Mo. 458.) The language of the assignment law shows that it was not int......
-
Pittsburg Testing Lab., Ltd. v. Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co.
...it is held that the statutes of limitation do not run against the state unless expressly declared. People v. Gilbert, supra; Com. v. Hutchinson, 10 Pa. 466. In other cases the rule has been applied to the discharge of bankrupts or insolvents. In the administration of government the municipa......
-
In re Harris
...people of the State are not bound by the general words in the Insolvent Law. People v. Herkimer, 4 Cow. [345] 348 . See, also, Com. v. Hutchinson, 10 Pa. 466, which is the same effect; Hilliard, Bank, (2d Ed.), 295. Sanctioned as that principle is by two express decisions of this court, it ......