Shoop v. The Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 06 June 1846 |
| Citation | 3 Pa. 126 |
| Parties | SHOOP <I>v.</I> THE COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
they would have marked out the line or rule for such discrimination. That no reason could be given for limiting the right of pardon in the case of fines and forfeitures, that would not equally apply to the clause relating to crimes and misdemeanors. That the right of the public to the exercise of the pardoning power, was equally a vested right with that of the informer. That the right to remit the whole before judgment was undoubted. Duncan v. The Commonwealth, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 451; King v. Coddington, Cro. Car. 9, 199; Ex parte McDonald, 2 Whart. 440; Hoffman v. Caster, Ibid. 453; and that the same right exists after judgment, is shown in Commonwealth v. Denniston, 9 Watts, 142. United States v. Morris, 10 Wheat. 246, recognises the right at any time anterior to payment. Whatever might be the construction as to the informer's share, yet no act of the legislature, directing the payment of any part to the county, could impair the right as to that part. 5 Com. Dig. 1725; 3 Inst. 2368; 1 Show. 284. He also cited 4 Mod. 61; 5 Bac. Abr. 285; 2 Serg. & Rawle, 499; Vin. Abr. title Prerogative.
Brandenberry, contrà, contended that the power of the governor to remit fines, included those only in which the Commonwealth was interested, and not such as were given to the party aggrieved, or vested by legislative enactment in any person or corporation. That the right of an informer after suit and judgment, from being inchoate becomes absolute and vested, and is beyond the prerogative of the king. 4 Com. Dig. 318; 17 Vin. Abr. title Prerogative, 39; 1 Chit. C. L. 742, 764; 4 Wash. Cir. Co. Rep. 64. Commonwealth v. Denniston, 9 Watts, was a case of fines estreated into the county commissioners' office, for the use of the Commonwealth. Here, the fine is payable to a corporation and an informer, and the right has become absolute by the judgment before the pardon was granted.
We affirm this judgment, for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. Kansas City v. Renick
...pardoning power of the State executive reaches only to matters in which the State is interested. [Pomeroy Const. Law, sec. 682; Shoop v. Commonwealth, 3 Pa. 126.] But if the precise question in this case has ever decided, we have not seen the decision. Under our Constitution the pardoning p......
-
City of Clovis v. Hamilton
...v. Hinton, 132 Ky. 684, 116 S.W. 1197, 19 Ann.Cas. 114; State ex rel. City of Kansas City v. Renick, 157 Mo. 292, 57 S.W. 713; Shoop v. Commonwealth, 3 Pa. 126. For reasons stated, the judgment should be affirmed, and the cause remanded to the district court, with directions to enforce its ......
-
City of Paris v. Hinton, Judge, &C.
...only those who are convicted of violations of state laws, and that his pardon of Carrie Neal was invalid. To the same effect is Shoop v. Commonwealth, 3 Pa. 126. In 24 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, p. 569, the rule is thus stated: "The pardoning power of a Governor of a state or territory is co......
-
City of Paris v. Hinton
... ... BARKER, ... The ... question arising on this record is whether or not the ... Governor of the commonwealth of Kentucky may legally pardon ... one who has been convicted in the police court of a city for ... an infraction of a municipal ordinance, or ... of state laws, and that his pardon of Carrie Neal was ... invalid. To the same effect is Shoop v ... Commonwealth, 3 Pa. 126. In 24 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, ... p. 569, the rule is thus stated: "The pardoning power of ... a Governor of a ... ...