McQuiston v. Central Board of Education

• Decision Date: 06 January 1879
• Citation: 88 Pa. 29
• Parties: McQuiston et al. <I>versus</I> Central Board of Education.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 29

88 Pa. 29

McQuiston et al. versus Central Board of Education.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 7, 1878.

January 6, 1879.

November 7th 1878.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and TRUNKEY, JJ. WOODWARD, J., absent

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1878, No. 116 J. L. Koethen and M. A. Woodward, for plaintiffs in error. —It is not to be assumed that the legislature intended to make an exception to the operation of the usury laws. It could not have been contemplated that over six per cent., or six per cent., could be honestly bid for the school fund, for the reason that the bidders could not themselves lawfully obtain over that amount; and to pay that amount on a daily balance, subject to daily fluctuations, would be suicidal. It is not to be assumed that violation of law was to be encouraged by legislation. The Act of 1870 is supplementary, and not referring to the compensation allowed under the Act of 1869, and not having anything in it positively inconsistent with that, it would be a great straining of any known rule of interpretation to say that that clause of the Act of 1869 was repealed by the Act of 1870.

Josiah Cohen, for defendant in error.—The power to take more than legal interest was a legislative grant in aid of that cause which lies nearest the best interests of the state — the education of its youth. It was a power specially delegated for a special purpose, and one which proved far more beneficial, in this instance, to the bank which took eight per cent. than to the board, which only received 6 7/8 per cent.

It would certainly appear to be subversive of all known rules of interpretation to hold that these two Acts of Assembly can stand together, or that the commission clause of the Act of 1869 can stand with the provisions of the Act of 1870, when the very essence of distinction in the Act of 1869, as applied to the Act of 1870, is the granting of a commission to the treasurer for his services, which was sought to be, and evidently was, repealed, and made inconsistent with the language, purpose and intent of the Act of 1870.

Mr. Justice PAXSON delivered the opinion of the court, January 6th 1879.

It was provided by the 10th section of the Act of 12th February 1869, Pamph. L. 967, that the treasurer of the Central Board of Education of the city of Pittsburgh, "shall be allowed to retain for his services a sum not exceeding one per...