Com. ex rel. Harkins v. Hinkson
28 A. 1081, 161 Pa. 266, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 683
Opinion
Vigilance on the part of all officers intrusted with the disbursement or oversight of public moneys cannot be commended too highly. It is better to err on the side of safety than on that of carelessness or extravagance. In this case we think the controller has carried official vigilance beyond the limits of his official authority.
The writ of mandamus was properly issued, and the action of the court below is fully vindicated by the opinion of the learned judge who directed the writ.
The order is now affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Com. ex rel. Harkins v. Hinkson, 28 A. 1081, 161 Pa. 266, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 683 (Pa. 1894).
28 A. 1081 (Com. ex rel. Harkins v. Hinkson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Alberts v. Urban Redevelopment Authority
277 A.2d 361 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
Marbelite Co. v. Philadelphia
222 A.2d 443 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1966)
Socha v. Metz
9 Pa. D. & C.2d 315 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1955)
Partridge v. Coal Township School District
47 Pa. D. & C. 178 (Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas, 1943)
Schlosberg v. City of New Castle
100 Pa. Super. 139 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)
Veech v. Connellsville
1 Pa. D. & C. 758 (Fayette County Court, 1922)
Opening of Parkway
110 A. 144 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)