Case ID: serg-rawl_4/html/0125-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Commonwealth against The Commissioners of Philadelphia County.
    
      Monday, July 13.
    AN alternative mandamus had issued to the defendants on a former day at the suggestion of William Thackara, com-«landing them to draw an order in his favour on the county ,. i r i - t -t i i r treasurer for interest on a certain draft, which they had tormerly drawn, and which had been accepted by the treasurer, or to shew cause to the contrary.
    The Court ™mawtoSs4 to the county commission!;;» to compel the “^in" order drawn by them on the county
    
      Thackara claimed interest upon his bill for plaistering to the state-house, amounting to 590 dollars, from the 27th May, 1817, to the 6th January, 1818, when the principal sum was paid; and now Ewing, on his behalf, moved for a peremptory mandamus to compel payment.
    
      Daniel B. Lippard,
    
    the county treasurer, who was examined, stated, that the order had been accepted by him ; that it was not paid, because the auditors had refused to allow similar payments, (on account of repairs done to the state-house,) in the commissioners’ accounts ; that the commissioners promised to indemnify him for not paying the order; that when he came into office, the county was in debt more than 100,000 dollars; that the commissioners drew orders payable at future days, and when they were unable to pay them, they were renewed with the interest included ; that he understood it had been the practice to pay interest when orders were not punctually paid; and that the commissioners thought Thackara had already received more than he was entitled to.
    On his cross-examination he said, that the debt of 100,000 dollars had all been paid except about 5000 dollars; that the county was in debt when this order fell due ; that the commissioners had borrowed 26,000 dollars of the banks, and that the orders were all paid as soon as this Court decided the case of Gilbert.
    
    
      Delany,
    
    for the commissioners, mentioned the cases of The Commonwealth ex rel. George Fox, and Same ex rel. Hannah Fox v. The County Commissioners, in which, rules to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue to compel the payment of interest, had, after argument, been discharge ed by the Court,
    
      Ewing,
    
    in support of his motion, urged, that as the principal was regularly due on the 27th May, 1817, it ought on generai principle to bear interest from that day; that it had been decided in the case of Milne v. Rempublicam, that the Commonwealth was liable for interest, and there could be no reason why the county commissioners should stand upon higher ground; that the cases referred to by the opposite counsel, were now brought forward for the first time, and no opportunity had been afforded to inquire into their particular circumstances; that they were, however, différent from this, which was the case of an accepted order, and such a case had never before been brought before the Court.
    
      Delany was about to reply, when the Court stopped him.
    
      
      
         3 Yeates, 102.
    
   Per Curiam.

We have never given the extraordinary remedy of mandamuses to compel the payment of interest on an order of this kind. On the contrary, it was refused in Mr. Fox’s case. We believe the custom throughout the state has been not to pay interest, and those persons who deal with the commissioners understand, that the time of payment depends on the state of the treasury. If the relator has any other remedy he is at liberty to pursue it; but it is the opinion of this Court, that a peremptory mandamus should not be granted.

Peremptory mandamus refused.