Case ID: walker_2/html/0342-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Sterrett, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SMITH VS. PALMYRA TOWNSHIP.
    The Quarter Sessions has power to compel grand children to pay t he Township its expenses for supporting their grand-father.
    Certiorari to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Pike County. No. 20 July Term, 1884.
    The facts appear the opinion of the Court delivered March 22, 1884, by
    Seeley, P. J.
    On May 25,1881, Hon. C. P. Waller then being President Judge in this district, it was decreed, “that John M. Smith,. Lewis Smith, George G. Smith and James Smith each pay to the overseers of Palmyra the sum of 25cts. per week from the first day of January, 1878, until the present time, and continue to pay the same until the further order of the Court, and that they jointly pay the costs of this proceeding.”
    About the 11th of June, 1881, George G. Smith and Lewis, Smith paid under said decree $5, for ten weeks.
    Lewis Rockwell died July 12,1881.
    The overseers have now presented their petition, setting forth the above matters, alleging that no further compliance with the-order of the Court has been rendered, that the parties charged have forfeited the sum of $20 per month for non-compliance with the above order, that there was due at the time of Lewis Rockwell’s death to the said overseers the sum of $180, beside the costs, and asking that a writ in the nature of a writ of fieri facias be awarded against the parties to collect the penalties incurred.
    Upon this petition a rule was granted on the parties named to show cause why judgment should not be decreed against them for the penalty provided by law, and process of execution awarded.
    George Smith and Lewis Smith by their answer to this rule, object — 1st. That they have tendered and have always been willing to pay the amount decreed against them, and asking leave to pay it into Court.
    2d. That the pauper having died within seven weeks of the decree of Court, they had overpaid at the time of his death.
    3d. That no monthly forfeiture could be claimed for non-payment of the weekly installments after the death of the pauper, or by reason of the not paying the back debt made payable at the time of said decree, or for the non-payment of costs.
    4th. Alleging that a large portion of the costs are illegal and unjust.
    5th. Denying the jurisdiction of this Court, and its power to grant the writ or process as prayed for.
    Upon the issues of fact and law thus taken witnesses have been examined, whose depositions we have carefully considered, and we find:
    1st. That while George Smith and Lewis Smith have indicated a disposition to comply with $he decree of the Court, as they have alleged the decree to have been made, they have not shown any tender or offer to comply with the decree sufficient in our opinion to relieve them from the penalty of $20 imposed by the Act of Assembly for their failure, to comply with it.
    2d. The payment by George and Lewis Smith of five dollars to cover the charge ten weeks as decreed against' them by the Court did not relieve them from this penalty.
    3d. We think the penalty of $20 per month would not be incurred by reason of not paying the costs of the proceeding, but that it was incurred by reason of not paying the amount due under the decree at the time it was made. The penalty imposed by the Act is for each month during which the parties shall fail to comply with the order of the Court, not for failure to pay-the installments which may accrue during the period for a month.
    4th. The question of correctness or legality of the bill of costs taxed is not before us in any such form as to permit our action with reference to them. The Court has decreed that they shall be paid by the parties named in the decree jointly. We will not sit in judgment upon that former action of the Court or consider whether it was correct or not. We take this decree as we find it upon the records of the Court.
    5 th. We think we have the power in this proceeding to grant the prayer of the petitioner. The Act of Assembly does not contemplate that an action of debt should be instituted to recover this penalty. It directs that it shall be collected by process of the Court of Quarter Sessions. This Court has no power to entertain or take jurisdiction of an action of debt. Nor do we perceive how a judgment obtained in such action could be enforced by its process.
    This proceeding by petition and rule to show cause, is in the nature of a writ of scire facias to show cause why execution should not issue. The parties have their day in Court with full opportunity to be heard, and we do not doubt our power to adjudge the forfeiture of the penalty and to direct process of execution for its collection ; See Act 15 April, 1857, Pamphlet Laws 191; Act 13 June, 1836, § 20, P. L. 545.
    If the parties had desired that any issue of fact made by them in the matter should be tried before a jury, upon proper application being made for such purpose, we might have considered them entitled to such a trial.
    “And now, March 22, 1884, it is adjudged that George G. Smith, Lewis Smith, John M. Smith and James Smith have become subject to and forfeited the sum of $20 per month for 9 months by reason of their failure to comply with the decree of this Court made May 25, 1881, making in all the sum of one hundred and eighty dollars, which sum is adjudged against them, and that a writ be issued against them the said George G. Smith, Lewis Smith, John M. Smith and James Smith in favor of the Commonwealth to the use of the overseers of the poor of Palmyra Township, for the collection of said sum; returnable to the next Court of Quarter Sessions of Pike Co.”
    Lewis P. Smith and George G. Smith then took a certiorari to the Supreme Court assigning the following errors:
    The Court erred:
    1. In decreeing May 25,1881, that Lewis Smith pay the sum of twenty-five cents per week from Jan. 1st, 1878 until the further order of the Court.
    2. In decreeing, May 25, 1881, that George G. Smith pay the sum of twenty-five cents per week from Jan. 1st 1878, until the further order of the Court.
    3. In decreeing, May 25, 1881, that John M. Smith, Lewis Smith, George G. Smith, and James Smith jointly pay the costs of the proceeding.
    4. - In decreeing, Dec. 23,1881, that the said John M. Smith, Lewis Smith, George G. Smith, and James Smith pay the sums ordered within thirty days, or show cause why a mandamus should not issue.
    5. In decreeing, March 1,1882, that a mandamus issue to the said John M. Smith, Lewis Smith, George G. Smith, and James Smith.
    6. In not permitting Lewis Smith and George Smith to pay into Court the amounts respectively payable by them, as prayed for in their answer filed Dec. 18,1882.
    7. In adjudging, March 24, 1884, that George G. Smith, Lewis Smith, J ohn M. Smith, and J ames Smith had forfeited the sum of $20 per month for nine months, making altogether the sum of $180, by reason of failure to comply with the decree made May 25,1881, and in awarding process against them for the collection of said sum.
    
      
      H. Wilson Esq., for appellants.
    
      George G. Waller, contra.
    
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Quarter Sessions! on March 9, 1885, in the following opinion, per:

Sterrett, J.

It cannot be doubted that the Court of Quarter Sessions had jurisdiction of the parties to this contention as well as the subject matter thereof. The proceedings were duly commenced in December, 1877, under Section 28 of the Act of June 13th, 1836, P. Laws 547, which provides that “the father and grandfather, and mother and grandmother, and the children and grandchildren of every poor person, not able to work, shall at their own charge, being of sufficient ability, relieve and maintain such poor person at such rate as the Court of Quarter Sessions of the County where such persons reside, shall order and direct, on pain of forfeiting a sum not exceeding twenty dollars for every month they shall fail therein, which shall be levied by the process of the said Court and applied to the relief and maintenance of such poor person Purd. 1157, pi. 27. The case was so proceeded in, that on May 25,1881, the Court made a final order “That John M. Smith, Lewis N. Smith, George G. Smith and James Smith, each pay to the Overseers of Palmyra Township the sum of twenty-five cents per week from the first day of January, 1878, until the present time, and continue to pay the same until 'the further order of this Court; and that they jointly pay the costs of this proceeding.”

It will be observed that the order does not relate back to the time the grandfather of the four parties therein named became a charge upon the township, but only to the time they were cited to appear and answer the petition 0f the overseers. That the Court had power to'make the order, relating back to the last mentioned date at least, cannot be doubted. As was held in .Wertz v. Blair County, 16 P. F. Smith, 18, it was the only mode in which the overseers could be reimbursed for their outlay in supporting the pauper who had been a charge on the township for three years prior to the commencement of these proceedings. But, whether the order was in proper form or not, it is unnecessary now to inquire. It does not appear that any of the parties excepted to it, or took the necessary steps to have it reviewed until long after the time for doing so had elapsed. "Whether right or wrong, therefore, it must now be treated as final and conclusive, and hence the first five specifications of error may be dismissed without further comment.

It is not pretended that the order of May 25, 1881, was complied with by either of the grandchildren, except that two of them, the plaintiffs in error, paid $5, which was applicable to to the first few weeks immediately succeeding the first day of January, 1878. As fo the residue of the sum embraced in the order, they were all in default from the date thereof, May 25, 1881, until March 22,1884, when the penalty was imposed, a-period of over two years and a half. And then the Court acted with great leniency in imposing the penalty of $20 per month for nine months only. That sum, aggregating $180, appears to be just sufficient to cover the outlay of the township for the support of their grandfather until the date of his death on July 12th, 1881. The final order does not include costs. It thus appears that after obstinately resisting the just claims of the overseers for more than six years these plaintiffs in error are about to escape with the payment of a sum barely sufficient to reimburse the township for its outlay in supporting their grandfather. We fail to discover anything in the proceedings of which the plaintiffs in error have any reason to complain.

As has already been observed, the writ was not taken in time to justify a review of either- of the matters complained of in the first five specifications. There is no merit in the sixth assignment of error. The Court was clearly warranted in making the order complained of in the seventh specification. By the Act of April 15th, 1857, the several Courts of Quarter Sessions are expressly authorized to hear, determine and make orders and decrees in all cases arising under the 28th section of the Act of June 13th, 1836, either upon the petition of the Overseers of the Poor or of any other person or persons having an interest' in the support of such poor person or persons, and either with or without an order of relief haying been first obtained: P. L. 191.

Proceedings affirmed with costs, to be paid by plaintiffs in error, and record remitted.