Shartzer v. School District

• Decision Date: 06 October 1879
• Citation: 90 Pa. 192
• Parties: Shartzer et al. <I>versus</I> The School District of the Borough of Washington.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

90 Pa. 192

Shartzer et al. versus The School District of the Borough of Washington.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 7, 1879.

October 6, 1879.

May 7th 1879.

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

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: Of May Term 1879, No. 153.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

H. C. Brubaker and S. H. Reynolds, for plaintiff in error.— It was error to admit the auditor's report. There was no evidence of an actual report, and it was never filed as required by law. But we were not allowed, either under the cross-examination of the witness, or by the subsequent offers in behalf of our defence to this action, to show that neither the witness nor his colleagues had ever been elected or sworn as auditors; that these two men, as residents, and perhaps taxpayers of the borough of Washington, had undertaken, in the face of the law, to establish themselves as a court of inquiry, before which the treasurer would be obliged at their bidding to have his accounts with the directors investigated, and adjudicated.

We admit that had there been an actual settlement made by the legally elected and qualified borough auditors, such report would be conclusive upon us unless an appeal had been taken as prescribed by the Act of 11th April 1862, pl. 3, Pamph. L. 471, Purd. Dig. p. 241, pl. 35; Porter v. School Directors, 6 Harris 144. The statute furnishes the tribunal before which the accounts of the treasurer with the directors are to be settled, and no set of men can constitute that tribunal except in the manner fixed by law.

We concede that the proper tribunal for the adjustment of differences was the board of borough auditors, but when none were elected or sworn for the several terms of the treasurer, what other remedy was there? This suit brought us before a tribunal where we might have our case adjudicated.

H. M. North, for defendant in error.—The pleas admitted the contract and liability as declared on: Gebhart v. Francis, 8 Casey 78; Gilinger v. Kulp, 5 W. & S. 264; Abbott v. Lyon, 4 Id. 38; Lewis v. Morgan, 11 S. & R. 234. These auditors were de facto officers and as such their official acts were binding: Dillon on Municipal Corporations, sect. 214; Scadding v. Lorant, 5 E. L. & E. R. 30. A settlement by township auditors of the account of the treasurer of a school district is conclusive unless an appeal be taken: Porter v. School Directors, 6 Harris 144; Township of Middletown v. Miles, 11 P. F. Smith 290; Wissler v. Township of East Hempfield, Lancaster Bar, November 27th 1869, by Long, P. J.

Mr. Justice MERCUR delivered the opinion of the court, October 6th 1879.

This was an action on the bond of the treasurer of the school district, of the Borough of Washington for the year 1873, and his sureties. The plea of payment admitted the execution of the bond, and this disposes of the first assignment: Lewis v. Morgan, 11 S. & R. 234; Abbott v. Lyon, 4 W. & S. 39: Gilinger v. Kulp, 5 Id. 264; Gebhart v. Francis et al., 8 Casey 78.

The defendant in error sought to recover the sum found due from the treasurer on a settlement of his accounts, made by the borough auditors. The first section of the Act of 21st May 1857, authorizes borough auditors to settle the accounts of school treasurers, with the right of appeal therefrom, to either party. Unless appealed from, such settlement is conclusive: Porter v. School Directors, 6 Harris 144; Township of Middletown v. Miles, 11 P. F....