The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1898-11-28
BOROUGH RESTRAINED.
Sureties ON Mr.. Scanlan's 1896 Bond In.
stitute Proceedings.


stitute Proceedings.
Special to EvRSGNG HERALD.
Pottsville, Nov. 2s-Messrs Mellet, Brobst
and Rynkawicz, sureties on the 1896 tax
bond of NJ. j. Scanlan, of Shenandoah, this
morning went into court and procured rule
temporarily enjoining the borough and
School Board from proceeding against the
bondsmen for collection of the balances
alleged to be due under the duplicate of
1896
The following is a copy of the petition
presented in the proceeding:
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Schuylkill county
The Commonwealth of PENNSYLVANIA
ex. rel. the School District of the Bor-
ough of Shenandoah, and the Borough
OF Shenandoah VS.. Michael J. Seaman,
Thomas Scanlan and Others on the tax
bond of 1896. No. II, November Term,
1898
To the Honorable, the Judges of the
said court:
The petition of Edward c. Brobst, Michael
Mellet and Joseph Rynkawicz respectfully
shows That the said Michael j. Scanlan, one
of the defendants above named, was duly
elected to the office of Collector of Taxes of
the Borough of Shenandoah, in said county,
for the years 1894 1895 and 1895, and that, as
collector aforesaid, he gave bonds as required
by law for each of said years, respectively.
That your petitioners, with the defendants
named in the above stated case, became the
sureties of the said Michael ]. Scanlan, col
lector as aforesaid on his bond for the year
| 1896, which said boud bears date the 21st day
of September, 1885, and was filed in the
| Court of Quarter Sessions of said county on
26th day of September, 1896, and was mark ed
approved by said court on the Goth day OF
September. 1896. and remained of record in
the office of the clerk of said court until the 9Th
day of September, 1898, when upon applica.
tiOn of counsel for the above named plaintiffs,
the said bond was certified by order of said
court into the Court of Common Pleas and
Judgment pursuant to warrant of attorney
in said bond for the sum of 500, 600 was en-.
tered thereon against your petitioners, and
the other defendants above named, and said
judgment stands as lien for said sum against
your petitioners.
Your petitioners further respectfully show
that the said Borough of Shenandoah, one
of the plaintiffs above named filed
= statement or resolution, purporting to have
been adopted by the Town Council thereof
upon which said application was made to the
court for an order certifying said bond to and
directing judgment to be entered thereon in
the said Court of Common Pleas as aforesaid,
by which statement or resolution said bor-
Ough claims balance of S14, SOB 96 due by
| said Collector on the duplicate for
borough taxes levied by said borough
| for the year 1896 And the sa. d
school district the other of said plaintiffs
has also filed statement or certificate claim
ing balance of $9,5S4.O6 as due by said
collector on the duplicate of school taxes fol
the year 1896, and alleges that the suretes OIL
said bond are liable for said sums, respec
lively, and threaten to collect the same b,
legal process.
Your petitioners further represent that the,
are advised by counsel that the entry of SAT-
judgment against your petitioners and thei
co-suTeties in the manner and way aboy,
stated is irregular and illegal, in that it il
not in accordance with the requirements o.
the provisions of the Act of the Genera
Assembly in such cases made and provided
which regulates and provides the manner
and course of procedure upon official bonds
Your petitioners further represent that
they have just, full and legal defense tC
whole of the plaintiffs claim, respectively
in the above stated case the nature and char
acter of which is as follows, namely:
That the said Borough of Shenandoah act
ing through its Town Council, which haG
full jurisdiction and authority in the
, premises, did not prepare or deliver tn tn,
said collector any duplicate for take.
levied by it for the said year of 1896 unit
the month of September, 1897, about oil
more than year after the giving
of the said bond, nor has any warrant ever
; been issued, executed and delivered by said
borough to said collector authorizing him and
requiring him to collect the taxes levied by
the said borough for the said year 1896, as
: required by law; and that the said collector
3 had no such duplicate or warrant during the
period for which said bond was given by
: defendants.
, And your petitioners further aver and
! expect to be able to prove tha
g all borough taxes collected by tn,
= said collector for 1896 have been faith
fully accounted for and paid over to tn,
; treasurer of the said borough, according /,
+ law, and after such payments by the saiC
collector to the officials, the said borough un
lawfully undertook to appropriate and appl!
said money so collected for taxes for the yea
' 1896 to the other duplicates and accounts o
said collector for other years. And you
petitioners allege that there is not due b,
said collector of taxes for the year 1896 I
the said borough the sum of Sl4, SOB 8
n claimed by it and set forth in tn
1t statement fled as herein above stated
but that credting the said colectC
with moneys collected by him for bo
ough taxes for the said year of 1856
(Contlaued on Fourth PaRel