Case ID: pa_390/html/0586-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam, Mr. Justice Musmanno:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daystrom, Incorporated, Appellant, v. Batt.
    
      November 18, 1957:
    Argued October 3, 1957.
    Before Jones, O. J., Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno, Arnold and Jones, JJ.
    
      William, H. Wood, with him Leon D. Metzger and Hull, Le-iby and Metzger, for appellant.
    
      Morley W. Baker, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellees.
   Opinion

Per Curiam,

The judgment of the court below sustaining defendants' preliminary objections is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Richards : 10 Pa. D. & C. 2d 39.

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Musmanno:

The plaintiff in this case, Daystrom, Incorporated, made'an overpayment to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the amount of approximately $166,500. I see no reason why it should not be paid back.

There is no business place in the world which honors itself by living up to the Golden Rule, by respecting the fundamental rules of good business practices, and by observing fair business methods, that would not gladly make refund of what it collected through error and to which it is clearly not entitled.

Why should the Golden Rule shine any less brightly in the business house of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?