Slattery v. Hendershot
This text of 110 A. 147 (Slattery v. Hendershot) 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.
Opinion
The County of Luzerne contains more than one hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants, and its district attorney is a salaried officer, whose salary is compensation for all services rendered by him in his official capacity: Schuylkill County v. Wiest, 257 Pa. 425; and the Act of May 19,1887, P. L. 138, in so far as it provides compensa[404]*404tion for him in addition to his salary for the performance of his official duties, wherever rendered, is in conflict with the constitutional limitation upon what he is to receive. This was the obviously correct conclusion of the Superior Court in reversing the judgment of the court below, under which the appellant would have received compensation to which he is not entitled: 72 Pa. Superior Ct. 240.
The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
110 A. 147, 267 Pa. 402, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slattery-v-hendershot-pa-1920.