Schuylkill County v. Minogue
| Decision Date | 05 March 1894 |
| Docket Number | 412 |
| Citation | 160 Pa. 164,28 A. 643 |
| Parties | Schuylkill County v. Minogue, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued February 12, 1894
Appeal, No. 412, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, James F Minogue, from order of C.P. Schuylkill Co., Jan. T., 1893 No. 227, discharging rule to strike off judgment. Reversed.
Rule to strike off judgment. Motion to quash appeal.
From the record it appeared that on December 1, 1892, the auditors of Schuylkill county filed a report finding that James F. Minogue was indebted to the county in the sum of $425, "moneys overdrawn for solicitor's fees." On the same day judgment was entered on the report. On Feb. 20, 1893, the court granted a rule to strike off the judgment. On Feb. 27th the court discharged the rule. On the same day defendant appealed from the county auditors' report to the court of common pleas, which appeal was pending when defendant took this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The appellee moved to quash this appeal.
Errors assigned were (1) discharge of rule to strike off judgment; (2) in not striking off judgment; (3) to the jurisdiction of auditors.
The decree discharging the rule to show cause is reversed and rule reinstated; and it is now ordered and decreed that the rule be made absolute, and that the costs in the court below and here be paid by the plaintiff.
P. M. Dunn, J. F. Minogue with him, for appellant, cited: Wall v. Wall, 123 Pa. 553; Firmstone v. Mack, 49 Pa. 392; Act of May 3, 1878, P.L. 44; Chester Co. v. Barber, 97 Pa. 455; Rowand v. Allegheny Co., 111 Pa. 315; Mudge v. Williamsport, 78 Pa. 160; McKinney v. Brown, 130 Pa. 368, Allen v. Krips, 119 Pa. 4; Pantall v. Dickey, 123 Pa. 438.
J. O. Ulrich, for appellee. -- Appellant has no standing here because he appealed from the county auditors' report to the common pleas, as provided by the act of April 15, 1834, P.L. 547. The appeal to the common pleas nullified the judgment which appellant seeks to review here.
Before STERRETT, C.J., GREEN, WILLIAMS, MITCHELL and FELL, JJ.
Acting on the belief that they had authority to do so, the auditors of Schuylkill county audited the account of the defendant, James F. Minogue, attorney for the county commissioners, and reported him indebted to said county four hundred and twenty-five dollars, moneys overdrawn for solicitor's fees and thereupon, judgment was entered against him for that sum. It is conceded that the commissioners were also surcharged with a like sum, for unauthorized payment of said fees, which amount is included in judgment entered against them at the same time; but that does not appear in the record now before us, nor is it material to this contention. In February, 1893, appellant obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment against himself should not be stricken from the record, on the ground that the auditors had no jurisdiction in the premises, etc. From the decree discharging that rule, this appeal was taken.
Plaintiff relies mainly on its motion to quash on the ground that defendant by appealing from the judgment on the day his rule to show cause was discharged, recognized its force and effect as a judgment, and cannot now say that it is void for want of jurisdiction in the county auditors. We cannot assent to that proposition. Want of jurisdiction may be taken advantage of at any stage of the case. An appeal from the judgment, -- taken out of abundance of caution -- cannot have the effect of making a void judgment either a voidable or a valid one. If void in its inception, for want of jurisdiction in the county auditors, it is still void, and the contention should be terminated by striking it from the record. The motion to quash is therefore denied.
With commendable frankness, the learned counsel for plaintiff, in the course of his argument, conceded...
To continue reading
Request your trial