Leach v. Philadelphia

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Leach v. Philadelphia

16 A.2d 153, 142 Pa. Super. 269, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 549

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 15, 1940

DocketAppeal, 256

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.2d 153 (Leach v. Philadelphia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leach v. Philadelphia, 16 A.2d 153, 142 Pa. Super. 269, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 549 (Pa. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We are of opinion that this case is ruled against appellant by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Schwarz v. Phila., Hanley v. Phila. and Swift, Admr. *270 v. Phila., reported together in 337 Pa. 500-511, 12 A. 2d 294.

The plaintiff was clerk of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County. His salary was fixed by the General Assembly, but was payable by the City. He signed a power of attorney and semi-monthly payrolls differing in no essential particulars from those described in the Schwarz case (pp. 505 and 506), and setting forth as the “amount payable” to him, the amount which was actually paid to and received by him. The payrolls did not contain any note or entry by him reserving his right to collect from the City the percentages deducted from his salary, as was present in Taylor v. Phila., 126 Pa. Superior Ct. 196, 190 A. 663, affirmed, per curiam, in 328 Pa. 383, 196 A. 64.

Referring to the effect of his thus signing the payroll, Mr. Justice Stern, speaking for the Court, said in the Swift case, supra, pp. 510, 511: “Apart from any question as to the meeting of the assessors, the jury could have found from the powers of attorney executed by decedent and more especially from the semi-monthly payroll receipts which he signed, that he intended to make a voluntary donation to the city of the unpaid portions of his salary for the years 1932 and 1933. Decedent was not compelled by law to accept a diminution in salary, and if his receipts indicated that he accepted the lesser, sums as being the amounts not only received but payable, this would be evidence from which the intention to make a gift could be inferred, and indeed should be inferred in the absence of contrary evidence.” (Italics by Mr. Justice Stern).

As there was no “contrary evidence” in the present case, the only inference to be drawn from the language of the Supreme Court is that a verdict for the defendant was properly directed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

We are of opinion that this case is ruled against appellant by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Schwarz v. Phila., Hanley v. Phila. and Swift, Admr. *270 v. Phila., reported together in 337 Pa. 500-511, 12 A. 2d 294.

The plaintiff was clerk of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County. His salary was fixed by the General Assembly, but was payable by the City. He signed a power of attorney and semi-monthly payrolls differing in no essential particulars from those described in the Schwarz case (pp. 505 and 506), and setting forth as the “amount payable” to him, the amount which was actually paid to and received by him. The payrolls did not contain any note or entry by him reserving his right to collect from the City the percentages deducted from his salary, as was present in Taylor v. Phila., 126 Pa. Superior Ct. 196, 190 A. 663, affirmed, per curiam, in 328 Pa. 383, 196 A. 64.

Referring to the effect of his thus signing the payroll, Mr. Justice Stern, speaking for the Court, said in the Swift case, supra, pp. 510, 511: “Apart from any question as to the meeting of the assessors, the jury could have found from the powers of attorney executed by decedent and more especially from the semi-monthly payroll receipts which he signed, that he intended to make a voluntary donation to the city of the unpaid portions of his salary for the years 1932 and 1933. Decedent was not compelled by law to accept a diminution in salary, and if his receipts indicated that he accepted the lesser, sums as being the amounts not only received but payable, this would be evidence from which the intention to make a gift could be inferred, and indeed should be inferred in the absence of contrary evidence.” (Italics by Mr. Justice Stern).

As there was no “contrary evidence” in the present case, the only inference to be drawn from the language of the Supreme Court is that a verdict for the defendant was properly directed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.2d 153, 142 Pa. Super. 269, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leach-v-philadelphia-pasuperct-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack