Commonwealth ex rel. Borough of Mechanicsburg v. Knettle
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 565, Jan. T., 1896, by-defendants, J. G. Coover, David Ober, J. C. Miller and S. F. Miller, from judgment of C. P. Cumberland Co., on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a tax collector’s bond.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 565, Jan. T., 1896, by-defendants, J. G. Coover, David Ober, J. C. Miller and S. F. Miller, from judgment of C. P. Cumberland Co., on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a tax collector’s bond. At the trial the jury rendered the following special verdict: We find that Joseph L. Knettle was duly elected collector of taxes in and for the borough of Mechanicsburg in February, 1893; also in February, 1894, and had in his hands for collection at the same time the duplicates for both of those years. The balance due on the duplicate for 1893 was settled and paid in full to the borough…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice McCollum,
This is an action on a collector’s bond in which the principal and his sureties are defendants. The appeal from the judgment of the trial court is by the sureties. The principal acquiesces in the judgment, presumably because as collector he is indebted to the borough in the amount thereof. He was duly elected collector of taxes in and for said borough in February, 1893 and in February 1894, and he gave in each year the bond required by law. The bond of 1894 is the bond in suit, and four of the sureties on it were sureties on the bond of 1893. *181The sureties on the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- American Bonding & Trust Co. v. Milwaukee Harvester Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1900
- Commonwealth v. Gutelius (No. 1)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- White & Bollard, Inc. v. Standard Accident InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1933
- Town of Enfield v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- Commonwealth v. PerregoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.