Mccalmont v. The County of Allegheny

Decision Date01 January 1857
Citation29 Pa. 417
PartiesMcCalmont versus The County of Allegheny.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Hopkins and McCandless, for plaintiff in error.

Large, for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by KNOX, J.

The plaintiff is the prothonotary of the Supreme Court for the Western District, and this action is brought by him against the county of Allegheny to recover money expended by him in paying the necessary expenses of the court. The whole amount of the expenditures for the years 1855, 1856, and 1857, is $340.12½, including $193.75 for the rent of a room for the use of the prothonotary of the court from April, 1855, to November, 1857, and ten dollars for a new seal. The remainder is for dockets for the court, stationery for the use of the judges whilst holding court in the Western District, for advertising the return days and printing argument lists. The amount charged and expended is conceded to be correct, and the only question raised upon the case stated is whether the county is liable for the expenditure. It is also conceded the commissioners of Allegheny county have hitherto refused to furnish the prothonotary a room in the court house or elsewhere, in which to preserve and keep the records and seal of the court, and that the plaintiff has provided a room for that purpose, and that the amount of rent charged is fair and reasonable. The first question that the case suggests is this. Were the expenditures or any of them such as the prothonotary was himself bound to make at his own expense? This question we unhesitatingly answer in the negative. By the 9th section of the Act of 14th April, 1834, "the prothonotary of the Supreme Court is directed to keep the seal and records of the court for his district at the place of holding the court, and in the apartments provided by authority of law for that purpose." This provision excludes the idea that he is bound to provide a place for the safe keeping of the seal and records at his own expense; and he is no more bound to furnish the seal and dockets for the courts, than he is to pay the expenses of fire and light for the court house. Nor is the necessary printing in advertising orders of the court or in preparing trial lists a personal charge upon the prothonotary. He is allowed, it is true, the sum of 12½ cents for stationery in each case by the fee bill, but this does not include the stationery used by the judges whilst holding court or in preparing opinions. It is limited to the stationery used by the clerks and counsel. When a prothonotary is compelled to expend his own money in procuring articles for public use on account of the refusal of the public authorities to procure them for him, he has the right to claim...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • O'Coin's, Inc. v. Treasurer of Worcester County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 19 Septiembre 1972
    ...Other Pennsylvania cases include Commonwealth v. Clue, 3 Rawle 498, 502, 503: Commissioners v. Hall, 7 Watts 290; McCalmont v. County of Allegheny, 29 Pa. 417, 419--420; Leahey v. Farrell, 362 Pa. 52, 54--60, 66 A.2d 577. See In re Surcharge of County Commrs., 12 Dist. & Co. R. (Pa.) 471, 4......
  • Com. ex rel. Carroll v. Tate
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 16 Febrero 1971
    ...§ 14; 7 Ruling Case Law 'Courts' section 12, p. 985; section 62, p. 1033; County of Lancaster v. Brinthall, 29 Pa. 38; McCalmont v. (The) County of Allegheny, 29 Pa. 417. See comprehensive opinion of Chief Justice Maxey (then a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County) In re ......
  • Com. ex rel. Carroll v. Tate
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 16 Febrero 1971
    ... ... , Individually and on behalf of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. v. James H. J. TATE, Mayor of Philadelphia, et al., Appellants. Supreme Court of ... 985; ... section 62, p. 1033; County of Lancaster v ... Brinthall, 29 Pa. 38; McCalmont v. (The) County of ... Allegheny, 29 Pa. 417. See comprehensive opinion of ... Chief Justice ... ...
  • Grand Traverse County v. State
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 23 Agosto 1995
    ...so as to bind the county, without statute, the authorities are quite clear. People v. Stout, 23 Barb. 349 [N.Y.1856]; McCalmont v. Allegheny Co, 29 Pa. 417 [1857]; Supervisors of Crawford Co. v. Le Clerc, 4 Chand. 56 [Wis.1851]; White v. Polk Co., 17 Iowa 413 Our own decisions have always h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT