Commonwealth v. Steel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from tbe Common Pleas of Huntingdon county. May 19. This case came into the court below, by appeal, at tbe instance of tbe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from tbe report of tbe auditors of Huntingdon county, in and by which, under tbe act of 16th of April, 1845, tbe accounts of James Steel, as Prothonotary of tbe Court of Common Pleas, and Clerk of tbe Courts of Oyer and Terminer, &c., and Quarter Sessions of tbe Peace of Huntingdon county, with the Commonwealth of…
Read the full summary
In error from tbe Common Pleas of Huntingdon county. May 19. This case came into the court below, by appeal, at tbe instance of tbe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from tbe report of tbe auditors of Huntingdon county, in and by which, under tbe act of 16th of April, 1845, tbe accounts of James Steel, as Prothonotary of tbe Court of Common Pleas, and Clerk of tbe Courts of Oyer and Terminer, &c., and Quarter Sessions of tbe Peace of Huntingdon county, with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, were audited, examined, and settled. Tbe court thereupon directed an issue, to try whether James Steel,…
1Opinion of the CourtCoulter, J.
The act of the 24th March, 1818, being a supplement to the act of 10th March, 1810, taxing certain offices, by its very terms extends only to officers who have resigned or have been removed from office, and was clearly not contemplated to apply to any officer while in the discharge of the duty of his office.
There exists no good, or even colourable reason why the courts should strain the act to embrace the case of officers who continue in office. Whenever the defendant resigns or is removed from his office, he will be entitled to the benefit of the act of 1818, and belong to the class of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hannum v. SpearSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1795