Barker v. City of Pittsburgh

4 Pa. 49, 1846 Pa. LEXIS 169
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 21, 1846·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

That there is no contract, express or implied, for the permanence of a salary, is shown by the constitutional provision for the permanence of the salaries of the governor and judges, as exceptions. That there is a strong moral obligation, independent of constitutional provisions, is not to be disputed; but a moral obligation, however sacred, is not a ground for the enforcement of it as a legal right, with which alone we have power to deal. [52]*52The point, however, was decided in the Commonwealth v. Bacon, 6 Serg. & Rawle, 322, which is conclusive as a precedent; and the plaintiff is without remedy for what is certainly a hardship.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barker v. City of Pittsburgh, 4 Pa. 49, 1846 Pa. LEXIS 169 (Pa. 1846).

4 Pa. 49 (Barker v. City of Pittsburgh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carson v. City of Philadelphia
28 Pa. D. & C. 413 (Philadelphia County Municipal Court, 1936)
Wagoner v. Philadelphia
64 A. 557 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1906)
Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney General v. Mathues
210 Pa. 372 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)