Van Etten v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 26 March 1883 |
| Citation | 102 Pa. 596 |
| Parties | Van Etten et al. <I>versus</I> The Commonwealth, &c. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT, GREEN and CLARK, JJ.
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Sullivan county: Of January Term 1882, No. 422.
H. W. Patrick and Wm. Foyle, for the plaintiffs in error. —A mere mistake committed by the prothonotary, in good faith, may render him liable in an action on the case for damages, but it is not a breach of the condition of his official bond that he shall faithfully execute the duties of his office, so as to render his sureties liable: Commonwealth v. West, 1 Rawle 31; Commonwealth v. Conard, 1 Rawle 249; Roth v. Miller, 15 S. & R. 107; Cannell v. Crawford Co., 9 P. F. S. 197; Ludlow v. Simond, 2 Caines 29; Union Bank v. Clossey, 10 Johns. 271. This was not the case of an erroneous certificate of judgments issued by the prothonotary, for a fee, to the plaintiff, as in Ziegler v. Commonwealth, 12 Pa. St. 227, and McCaraher v. Commonwealth, 5 W. & S. 21, but no certificate was issued or demanded in this case. In any event, if the plaintiff were entitled to a verdict, he could only recover the amount which would have been applicable to the judgment from the fund produced by the sheriff's sale. The testimony, that if the judgment had not been marked satisfied the property would have been bid up to a higher sum, was vague and inadmissible.
Ellery P. Ingham (E. M. Dunham with him), for the defendants in error, cited: Coyne v. Souther, 11 P. F. S. 455; Ziegler v. Commonwealth, 2 Jones 227; Siewers v. Commonwealth, 6 W. N. C. 17; Mann's Appeal, 1 Barr 29; Ridgway, Budd & Co.'s Appeal, 3 Harris 182; Watson v. Smith, 2 Casey 395; Carmony v. Hoober, 5 Barr 305; Stark v. Fuller, 6 Wr. 324; Thorne v. Travellers' Ins. Co., 30 P. F. S. 30.
The act complained of is clearly covered by the bond on which this suit is brought. The improper satisfaction of a judgment by the prothonotary, without authority is a breach of his official duty. It gives a right of action on his official bond to the person injured by such action.
It is no defence that it was done through an honest mistake or a clerical error. One of the conditions of the bond is that the prothonotary shall faithfully execute the duties of his office. His duty is to make no false entry on the record. When duly authorized, it becomes his duty to mark a judgment satisfied. Here he had no semblance of authority to mark this particular judgment satisfied. It is no defence to an action for damages by persons aggrieved by this act for him to show that he made a clerical error or an honest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. to Use of Orris v. Roberts
...on the question of the prothonotary's vicarious liability for his subordinate's mistake (Ziegler v. Commonwealth, 12 Pa. 227; Van Etten v. Commonwealth, 102 Pa. 596; Wilson v. Arnold, 172 Pa. 264, 33 A. 552; and Commonwealth v. Cruikshank, 251 Pa. 390, 96 A. 825) are equally inapposite for ......
-
Com. to Use of Orris v. Roberts
...in performing the duties of his office makes him liable on his official bond. Saylor v. Com., supra; Ziegler v. Com., 12 Pa. 227; Van Etten v. Com., 102 Pa. 596; Wilson v. Arnold, 172 Pa. 264, 33 A. It is argued, however, that since the error in the instant case was caused by a subordinate ......