Jenkins v. City of Scranton
| Decision Date | 21 April 1902 |
| Docket Number | 35,41 |
| Parties | Jenkins, Appellant, v. Scranton. Jenkins v. Scranton, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued February 26, 1902
Appeals, Nos. 35 and 41, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiff and defendant, from judgment of C.P. Lackawanna Co., on case stated in suit of George W. Jenkins v. City of Scranton. Reversed.
Case stated to determine the title to office of delinquent taxes in the city of Scranton.
The material parts of the case stated were as follows:
George W. Jenkins, the plaintiff, was appointed by James Moir, the then recorder of the city of Scranton, on April 1, 1901, as collector of delinquent taxes for said city. The department of delinquent taxes, as one of the executive departments of said city, was created by provisions of article 5, section 1 of the act of March 7, 1901, and on the day of his appointment he was sworn in by the then recorder as collector of delinquent taxes, and from that time unto the present has been ready and willing to perform the duties of delinquent tax collector, and has from time to time made demands upon the city recorder and the other proper officers for books papers, and for office room in the city building so that he might perform the duties of delinquent tax collector; but all of said officers have refused to allow him to do so or to furnish him any books, papers or office room for that purpose.
The salary of the heads of departments as provided in section 3 of the schedule of said act is $5,000 per year, but the councils may reduce the salaries thereof to not less than $2,500 per annum, and may (article 2, section 1, act of March 7, 1901), by ordinance provide . . . that the city treasurer may be appointed collector of delinquent taxes, and that (article 20, section 3, schedule) where two departments are consolidated under this act, the salary of the officer performing the duties of said two departments may be reduced to not less than $2,500, and the salaries of the officers of the city of Scranton according to its practice are payable monthly.
An ordinance of the city of Scranton was passed and approved by the recorder on April 2, 1901, for the purpose of reorganizing the city government in accordance with the act of assembly referred to above.
Section 5 of this ordinance provides, "that the department of delinquent taxes shall be in charge of one person, who shall be the city treasurer; he shall have charge of the collection of delinquent taxes."
Section 14 of the said ordinance provides: "The compensation of the collector of delinquent taxes shall be three fifths of five per centum of the amount of delinquent taxes on real estate, and ten per centum on all occupation or poll tax, by him actually collected and paid into the city treasury."
Section 22 of said ordinance provides: "The city treasurer shall give a surety company bond to be paid for by the city in the sum of $80,000, similar in its conditions to those enumerated in section 21 of this ordinance, said bond shall be so drawn as to cover his duties as collector of delinquent taxes."
The city treasurer has given the bond as required by ordinance and has collected delinquent taxes for April, May and June as follows:
Upon real estate the sum of $1,812.79, and upon poll and occupation tax the sum of $61.17.
No compensation or salary to the delinquent tax collector other than the commissions above mentioned (section 14 of said ordinance) has been provided for by councils.
If the court be of the opinion that George W. Jenkins was legally appointed collector of delinquent taxes for the city of Scranton, and as such appointee, is entitled to compensation at the rate of $5,000 per annum, as the head of the department of delinquent taxes, then judgment to be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,250, being his salary for the months of April, May and June, 1901, with costs; but if not, then judgment to be entered for the defendant with costs.
If, however, the court shall be of the opinion that under the facts as stated, George W. Jenkins was legally appointed collector of delinquent taxes, and as such appointee is entitled to compensation upon the basis of a commission as fixed in the ordinance of the councils of the city of Scranton, then judgment to be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $72.50, with costs; but if not, judgment to be entered for defendant, with costs. Each party reserves the right to appeal from the decision rendered in this case to the appellate courts.
The court in an opinion by EDWARDS, P.J., entered judgment for plaintiff for $72.50.
Error assigned was in entering judgment as above.
H. C. Reynolds, with him George M. Watson, city solicitor, for appellant. -- The authority of the legislature over public offices is limited only by constitutional restraints and may be conferred upon municipal corporations with respect to municipal offices: 1 Dillon on Municipal Corporations (4th ed.), sec. 229; Commissioners, etc., of Northern Liberties v. Northern Liberties Gas Co., 12 Pa. 318.
It may fairly be claimed that the section which provided that councils may, by ordinance, provide that the city treasurer may be appointed collector of delinquent taxes is valid: Com. v. Wyman, 137 Pa. 523; Com. v. Moir, 199 Pa. 544.
It has been decided that city councils "may" provide for the election by qualified voters of any of the officers named in the act, and this has been held to leave it to the discretion of the city council whether the office of city attorney should be elective or not: 1 Dillon on Municipal Corporations (4th ed.), p. 296; Ball v. Fagg, 67 Mo. 481.
The power of appointment to the office of delinquent tax collector was vested in the councils in joint convention as prescribed by the Act of 1878, P.L. 8, sec. 5: Com. v. Wyman, 137 Pa. 508; Com. v. Macferron, 152 Pa. 244; Ferguson v. Pittsburg, 159 Pa. 435.
The councils had the right to fix the compensation of such collectors as provided in the act of 1878.
J. Wheaton Carpenter and Charles W. Dawson, for appellee. -- The councils may by failure or refusal to pass an ordinance, prevent an appointment by the recorder, but they cannot appoint: Lane v. Com., 103 Pa. 481.
It is a familiar rule of construction that every part of a statute should be brought into action in order to collect from the whole, one uniform and consistent sense, if that may be done; or, in other words, the construction must be made upon the entire statute, and not merely upon disjointed parts of it: Holl v. Deshler, 71 Pa. 299; Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, sec. 23.
So thoroughly recognized is this principle, that the power which appoints should also be permitted to remove officers, that it has been embodied in the constitution of the state, which in article 6, section 4, provides, inter alia, that "appointed officers other than judges of the courts of record, and the superintendent of public instruction, may be removed at the pleasure of the power by which they shall have been appointed." This has been held to apply to city officers, viz: a collector of delinquent taxes in Philadelphia: Houseman v. Commonwealth, 100 Pa. 222; Com. v. Sanderson, 11 Pa. C.C. Rep. 593; Buckalew on Constitution, p. 185, and notes.
We submit that the action of the court below in holding that Mr. Jenkins was and still is the legally constituted collector of delinquent taxes was right, but that it was wrong in entering judgment for $72.50 instead of $1,250: Johnston's Est., 33 Pa. 511; Best v. Baumgardner, 122 Pa. 17; Nusser v. Com., 25 Pa. 126.
Before McCOLLUM, C.J., MITCHELL, DEAN, BROWN and MESTREZAT, JJ.
George W. Jenkins, the plaintiff below, sued the city of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. City of Scranton
... 51 A. 994202 Pa. 267 JENKINS v. CITY OF SCRANTON. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. April 21, 1902. Appeal from court of common pleas, Lackawanna county. Action by George W. Jenkins against the city of Scranton. From the judgment plaintiff appeals. Reversed. H. C. Reynolds and George M. Watso......