Meagher v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 02 July 1970
• Citation: 266 A.2d 684,439 Pa. 532
• Parties: Hazel Mardis MEAGHER, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

266 A.2d 684

439 Pa. 532

Hazel Mardis MEAGHER, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 2, 1970.

Hazel Mardis Meagher, in pro. per.

Raymond C. Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., Deparment of Justice Harrisburg, Edward Friedman, Counsel General, William C Sennett, Atty. Gen., Department of Justice, Harrisburg, for appellee.

Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN ROBERTS, and POMEROY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BELL, Chief Justice.

This case is a trespass action filed by the plaintiff, Hazel Mardis Meagher, a resident of Indiana County, Against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The action was initiated by service of a copy of the complaint upon the Secretary of the Commonwealth and upon the Attorney General. The complaint and all other proceedings were written by the plaintiff without the assistance of an attorney and, needless to say, do not present the issues as clearly as they might. In essence, she states that the sale of a tract of land by officials in Indiana County for delinquent taxes and the subsequent removal of standing timber located thereon by various private individuals constituted an actionable trespass for which the Commonwealth must be held legally responsible.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, setting forth three grounds, with two of which we agree, namely: (1) that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against the Commonwealth; and (2) that this suit is unauthorized by the laws of Pennsylvania and thus is in violation of Article I, Section 11, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, P.S., which provides, inter alia: 'Suits may be brought against the Commonwealth in such manner, in such courts and in such cases as the Legislature may by law direct.'

The lower Court concluded that the Commonwealth, by reason of its Sovereignty, was immune from such suits, and, as it has not consented to be sued in trespass, the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The lower Court, therefore, sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint.

In Commonwealth v. Berks County, 364 Pa. 447, page 449 72 A.2d 129, p. 130, the Court said: 'Except for a presently immaterial jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution of the United States in respect of suits against States (Art. III, Sec. 2), a State may not be sued without its consent. In Bell Telephone Company of Penna. v. Lewis, 313 Pa. 374, 375, 169 A. 571, ...