The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1901-05-23
Supreme Court Opinion
In the case of T. J. VanderSliCe
versus w. KriCk baum.
Judgment Entered for Respond
ent on the Demurrer.

wanna, eS Tel. JOnH VI. IldI lndu, LIS
trict Attorney, VS.. William Krick.
baum.
No. 1I6, January Term, 1901. Ap.
peal by defendant from the Court of
Common Pleas of Columbia County.
Filed May I3, 1901.
MEsTREzAT, ].
Jeremiah Snyder was elected Treas
urer of Columbia County on Novem-
Der 6, 1899, for the term of three
years, commencing on the first Mon
day of the following January. On
December II, 1899, he executed and
delivered to the Commonwealth a
bond in the sum of $4,000 for the
faithful discharge of his duties. On
January 4, 1900, he gave to the Com
missioners OF Columbia County a
bond IN the sum of 100000 condi-
toned for the faithful performance Of
his official duties. William Krick
baum, the respondent and appellant.
is one of the sureties on each of said
bonds. In November, 1896, Krick-
baum was elected to the Office of
County Commissioner of Columbia
County and entered upon the duties
of his Office the first Monday of Jam
uary, 1897, for the term Of three
years. In November, 1899, he was
reelected to said office and entered
upon its duties the first Monday of
the following January. AT the time
OF becoming surety on said bonds he
was, therefore, a County Commits
sioner of Columbia County.
AT the instance of T. J. Wander
slice, Esq, the District Attorney Of
Columbia County presented a sugges-
tion to the Court of Common Pleas
Of that county, setting forth the above
and other reasons for quo warranto
against the respondent, and the writ
was duly awarded against him to show
by what authority he claimed to ex-
ercise the Office of County Commits.
sioner Of said county. The respond
ent filed an answer to the suggestion,
admitting the facts above reclted. but
denying the other allegations of the
suggestion. The relator demurred to
the answer, SO far as it admitted the
facts, and moved the court for judg-
ment of custer against the respond
ent. The demurrer was sustained and
on March II, 1901, judgment was
entered against Krickbaum, ousting
him from the Office of County Com
missioner of Columbia County. On
the same day the court below issued
an injunction against the respondent,
restraining him from exercising the
Office of County Commissioner and
from retaining in his possession the
books and papers of said Office. The
action of the Court in entering the
judgment of custer and In issuing the
injunction is assigned for error.
The pleadings raise but single
question for consideration, and that
is whether County Commissioner
can legally become a surety on the Of
fclal bond of County Treasurer.
This involves a construction of the
Goth section of the penal code Of
March 81, 1860, the part thereof ma
terial to this issue being as follows:
at shall not be lawful tor any coun-
Gilman, burgess, trustee, manager or
director of any corporation, munich
paltv or public institution, to be, at
the same time, treasurer, secretary
or other officer, subordinate to the
president and director, who shall re-
ceive salary therefrom, or be the
surety of such officer; and any per
son violating these provisions, or
either of them. shall forfeit his men,
bershlp in such corporation, munich
pallty or institution, and his office or
appointment Hereunder, and shall be
held guilty of misdemeanor, and on
conviction thereof, be sentenced to
pay fine not exceeding $500.
1t was contended by the appellee.
and so held by the court below, that
the statute applied to the case in
hand and that the act of the respond
ent in becoming surety for Jeremiah
Snyder, the county treasurer, offended
against its provisions. The learned
judge, specially presiding, held that a
county commissioner comes within
the designation of ''counclman, bur
CESS, trustee, manager or director" in
contemplation of the act, and that a
county is corporation within the
terms of The statute.
We do not agree with the trial
Judge that a county commissioner is
Included in the officials designated in
tins section of the Act of 1860. II
we correctly apprehend the position
of the learned Judge It is that a