Bryson v. Home for Disabled & Indigent Soldiers, Sailors & Mariners
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 481, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Erie Co., Feb. T., 1895, No. 38, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit to recover moneys alleged to have been improperly exacted from plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 481, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Erie Co., Feb. T., 1895, No. 38, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit to recover moneys alleged to have been improperly exacted from plaintiff. Plaintiff in his statement of claim averred that he was an inmate of the Home for Disabled and Indigent Soldiers etc., incorporated under the act of June 8, 1885; “that there is no law requiring an inmate, regularly admitted, to pay his board or maintenance, or to assign his pension or any part thereof to the board of trustees of said…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
The plaintiff sued to recover certain sums of money which he alleged he had been compelled to pay to the Home out of his quarterly installments of pension money received from the United States. These exactions he alleged were illegal and in plain violation of the spirit if not the letter of the pension laws. An affidavit of defense was made by the commanding officer of' the Home, in which he set out the following facts : First, the adoption of a rule by the board of managers of the Home requiring the inmates to turn over eighty per cent of their pension money to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Borough of North Braddock v. Second Avenue Traction Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Brooks v. HastingsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Rubinsky v. City of Pottsville, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1922