have generally been discribed as arising on implied contracts, but whether this or quasi-contractual is not of great importance. The doctrine of implied municipal liability applies to cases where money or other property of a party is received under such circumstances that the general law, independent of the express contract, imposes the obligation upon the city to do justice with respect to the same. Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 255, 282. The doctrine is recognized in a long line of Pennsylvania decisions, which includes Allegheny City v. McClurkan & Co., 14 Pa. 81; Philadelphia v. Lockhardt, 73 Pa. 211; Long v. Lemoyne Borough, 222 Pa. 311, 71 A. 211, 21 L.R.A., N.S., 474; Aspinwall-Delafield Co. v. Aspinwall, 229 Pa. 1, 77 A. 1098; Hall v. Dormont, 99 Pa.Super. 296; and others.
This obligation is, however, limited to paying the reasonable value of the property or services of which the municipality has had the benefit. I do not think, in the present case, that the testimony of the experts called by the plaintiff can be allowed to govern, because they testified on the theory that the bond was a faithful performance bond, or, at any rate a bond embodying a much wider liability than the one actually authorized and assumed. There is testimony, however, to the effect that, if this bond were to be construed as a fidelity bond (as it must be so far as the liability as tax collector is concerned), a reasonable premium would be not less than $5 a thousand and not more than $10. In view of all the circumstances of this case, I think the surety should have the benefit of the larger figure, and I therefore hold that the municipalities are liable under the law to pay an annual premium of $1,250
Findings of Fact.
The following plaintiff's requests for findings of fact are affirmed: Nos. 1 to 13, inclusive; 19 to 22, inclusive; 24, 25, 26, 28 and 31.
The School District's requests Nos. 1 to 12, inclusive are affirmed. 17 is affirmed, with the qulification that there is no evidence of an express contract.
The City of Allentown's requests Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are affirmed.
The other requests for findings of fact are either denied or not answered as immaterial in view of the Court's findings.
The Court makes the following special findings of fact:
1. The contract made by Mr. Kern to pay the sum of $6,600 was not ratified either expressly or impliedly by any of the defendants.
2. A reasonable premium representing the fair vlue of the protection afforded the municipalities by the bond is $1,250 per year.
Conclusions of Law.
The plaintiff's requests for conclusions of law Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are affirmed. The remaining requests of the plaintiff are denied.
The School District's requests Nos. 9 and 10 are affirmed. All others are denied.
The City of Allentown's requests Nos. 1, 2, 5 are affirmed. All others are denied.
The Court states the following conclusions of law:
1. The Act of June 21, 1935, is in force and governs the bonds of all city treasurers, including Mr. Kern, elected after the passage of that act.
2. As to the duties of the treasurer as tax collector, it requires a bond in the nature of a fidelity bond.
3. The bond given by Mr. Kern was in conformity with the law and has afforded the municipalities the protection required by the law during Mr. Kern's term of office.
4. The defendant municipalities are each under an implied obligation to pay one third of a premium representing the fair and reasonable value of the protection afforded them.
5. The new Rules of Federal Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, are applicable to this case.
6. The amended statement of claim filed by the plaintiff sufficiently sets forth a cause of action under which the plaintiff may recover the fair and reasonable value of the protection given by its bond.
Judgment may be entered for the plaintiff in accordance with the foregoing.