Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BERKS COUNTY INSTITUTION DISTRICT v. SCHOENER (11/14/55)

November 14, 1955

BERKS COUNTY INSTITUTION DISTRICT, APPELLANT,
v.
SCHOENER, APPELLANT.



Appeals, Nos. 178 and 186, Jan. T., 1955, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Nov. T., 1952, No. 44, in cases of Berks County Institution District v. Ralph E. Schoener. Appeal by defendant dismissed; appeal by plaintiff sustained and judgment modified.

COUNSEL

James W. Bertolet, with him Raymond C. Schlegel, and Donald F. Spang, for plaintiff.

Charles H. Weidner, with him Stevens & Lee, for defendant.

Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones and Arnold, JJ.

Author: Arnold

[ 383 Pa. Page 212]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ARNOLD

These appeals were argued together and will be disposed of in one opinion.

Berks County Institution District brought an action of assumpsit against the defendant, formerly county controller of Berks County, to recover the amount of alleged expenses taken by him in connection with his office.

Pursuant to the Act of 1949, P.L. 1709, 62 PS ยง 2253, the defendant, as county controller, received an expense allowance of $3,383.33 from July, 1949, through December, 1951.

The controller's reports did not show the actual expenses incurred by the controller in connection with the institution district during this period, nor at any time prior thereto; nor were actual expense accounts submitted to the institution district for any such expenses.

The defendant, as county controller, filed his official reports for the years 1949 and 1950, in which the per annum expenses were included only as "miscellaneous expenses" under the heading, "berks County Institution District Expenditures - General Administration." For the year 1951 the report of the county controller was filed by defendant's successor in office. No appeal was taken from any of these reports.

At the trial the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff in the full amount of its claim.

On motion for judgment n.o.v. the court below entered judgment for the plaintiff with the exception of the sum of $383.33 shown on the report of defendant's successor ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.