Commonwealth v. Hershey
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 278, Jan T., 1900, by defendants, from order of C. P. Lancaster Co., Feb. T., 1900, No. 84, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a bond of suretyship.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 278, Jan T., 1900, by defendants, from order of C. P. Lancaster Co., Feb. T., 1900, No. 84, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a bond of suretyship. From the opinion of Landis, J., on the rule for judgméñt for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense the following facts appear: Emanuel H. Hershey, one of the above-named defendants, was duly elected treasurer of the county of Lancaster on November 8,1896, and took charge of that office on the first Monday in January, 1897. Prior to the latter date, he gave two bonds—one to…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
We agree with the learned judge of the common pleas that the sureties on the bond of the county treasurer given to the state under the act of 1834. are liable for his default in not paying to the state treasurer the four-mill tax assessed on the owners of mortgages, judgments, etc., under the act of 1891; and that the county having paid the state the amount of the treasurer’s default, may recover from his sureties on the state bond. No tiling can profitably be added to the full and able discussion of the subject found in the opinion filed.
We cannot however accept…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. Philadelphia CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
3Cited by3 opinions
- Schoyer v. Comet Oil & Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Lancaster County v. HersheySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Lancaster County v. HersheySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903