Case ID: pa_197/html/0643-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Fell,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clark v. Cook.
    
      Sheriff—Special deputies—Gontraet to reimburse sheriff for expenses of special deputies—Strikes.
    
    In an action by the sheriff to recover for the expenses of special deputies furnished for the protection of defendants’ coal mines against the violence of striking miners, a judgment and verdict for plaintiff will be sustained where the jury have found upon sufficient evidence that the defendants had agreed with the plaintiff to pay the wages of special deputies which he furnished at their request to preserve the peace and protect their property, and that the contract entered into by the parties was performed by the sheriff and his deputies, and that the defendants received the services contracted for.
    Argued Oct. 16, 1900.
    Appeal, No. 137, Oct. T., 1900, by defendants, from judgment of tbe Superior Court, April T., 1900, No. 125, affirming judgment of C. P. Washington County, Feb. T., 1899, No. 186, on verdict for plaintiff in case of J. Y. Clark v. J. V. H. Cook et al., trading as Cook & Sons.
    Before McCollum, C, J., Mitchell, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit by sheriff to recover expenses of special deputies.Before McIlvaine, P. J.
    At the trial it appeared that on July 3, 1897, a strike was instituted at the defendants’ mines in Washington county. On application of the defendants, the sheriff furnished a number of special deputies to protect the defendants’ mines from the attacks of a large number of strikers who had established a camp in the vicinity. The evidence tended to show that the defendants had agreed to pay the wages of the special deputies, and that the sheriff and the special deputies had performed the services contracted for. The defendants claimed in the first place that there was no sufficient evidence of a contract to pay the deputies, and in the second place, that even if there was, the sheriff could not recover because he had not afforded defendants the protection, which as a public officer, he might and could have done. The case is reported in 14 Pa. Superior Gt. 309.
    
      Error assigned was the judgment of the Superior Court.
    
      Boyd Crumrine, with him B. W. Irwin and E. E. Orumrine, for appellants.
    
      W. S. Parker, with him Winfield McIlvaine, for appellee.
    January 7,1901:
   Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

The jury found (1) that the defendants had agreed with the plaintiff to pay the wages of special deputies which he furnished at their request to preserve the. peace and protect their property ; (2) that the contract entered into by the parties was performed by the sheriff and his deputies in good faith, and that the defendants received the services contracted for. These findings were conclusive of the issues raised. Whether the plaintiff as sheriff of the county fully performed official duties not connected with the service of his special deputies was a question which under the pleadings and evidence did not enter into the case.

The judgment is affirmed.