County of Lancaster v. Brinthall

29 Pa. 38
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 1, 1857
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 29 Pa. 38 (County of Lancaster v. Brinthall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
County of Lancaster v. Brinthall, 29 Pa. 38 (Pa. 1857).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Knox, J.

It is said that the statute of limitations will not apply to a claim against a county for costs incurred in a criminal proceeding, because there is neither an express nor an implied promise upon the part of the county to pay the costs; but that the liability is created solely by the positive requisition of the statute. If the premises were sound, it would be difficult to deny the conclusion claimed by the plaintiff below. But is it true that an action of assumpsit will not lie against a county in a case like the present ? The proceedings were in the name of the Commonwealth, and although she could not be sued for costs, yet, upon [40]*40the presumption, that she would act in good faith towards her citizens, the law would imply a promise upon the part of the state to make compensation for services rendered in its behalf. As a sovereign, the power of the state to direct the manner of paying for these services, whether they should be paid by the state treasurer for the entire state, or by each county for itself, is undoubted. The duty to pay is not only imposed by the statute, but it also arises from the benefits derived from the performance of the services, and as these services, though rendered in the name of the Commonwealth, were really for the preservation of order and the administration of justice within the county, why may we not imply an agreement founded upon the performance of the services and the requisitions of the statute, that the costs should be paid by the county ? We see no very great difficulty in this view of the case, and as it is clearly promotive of justice that there should be some limit to claims of this kind upon the county treasury, in point of time, we are disposed to apply the statutory bar against all claims for costs originating more than six years before the commencement of a suit to recover them.

Judgment of the Common Pleas reversed, and judgment is now rendered by this court in favour of the plaintiff for $12.61, with interest from the 29th of October, 1855, and costs.

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

Related

Twenty-First Judicial District Court v. State ex rel. Guste
563 So. 2d 1185 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1990)
TWENTY-FIRST JUD. DIST. COURT v. State
563 So. 2d 1185 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1990)
Konrad v. Jefferson Parish Council
520 So. 2d 393 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1988)
Vondy v. Commissioners Court of Uvalde County
620 S.W.2d 104 (Texas Supreme Court, 1981)
Commonwealth ex rel. Carroll v. Tate
442 Pa. 45 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
COM. Ex Rel. CARROLL v. TATE
274 A.2d 193 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
Leahey v. Farrell
66 A.2d 577 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1949)
Anderson v. City of Bridgeport
56 A.2d 650 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1947)
Suspended Sentence
59 Pa. D. & C. 276 (Pennsylvania Department of Justice, 1947)
House v. Allegheny County
34 A.2d 48 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1943)
Sappington v. Board of Com'rs of Jefferson County
1928 OK 655 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
In re Surcharge of County Commissioners
12 Pa. D. & C. 471 (Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, 1928)
Montgomery County v. City of Montgomery
70 So. 642 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Bennett v. Sullivan County
29 Pa. Super. 120 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 Pa. 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-lancaster-v-brinthall-pa-1857.