The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-05-10
THE OTHER CONTENTION.

Fifth--Thc remaining contention is decided in
favor OF the defendants. 1t appears that the Dor.
ough OF Moosic has been created out of a terri
tory formerly part Of Iackawanna township
The decree of our court Incorporating the bor.
ough OF Moosic was made Nov. %, 1893. An or.
der OF snpcrscdeaS was secured from the Sli-
pcrior court, hut the action of the court below
was affirmed in January, 1900, when the decree
OF incorporation became effective The Acts OF
april II, 1862, 7. l.. IA and June ], 1877 r.
l.. 2s5, provide that in such there shall he
an adjustment of liabilities and assets between
the two school districts the basis of the
assessment Of taxable property therein, taking
INTO consideration the relative value of the
school properties The assessment of Moosic bor
ongf Tor loVo, the first one made. was about one
third OF that OF Lackawanna township for the
same year. The territory constituting the bor-
ough had been moro fortunate in the matter of
school buildings that had the territory consttut.
ing the township as il remained after the diyi.
SION According to the evidence the value of the
school property in the borough was S22 $50: in
the township, $3.50,
The Indebtedness of the whole district as above
stated was $4,000, and the cash on hand about
Sll,OOo In our calculation these two items
may be allowed to offset each other Taking the
most conservative estimate, the school district
OF the borough OF Moosic owed the school dis,
trict OF Lackawanna township in January 1900
at least $1,000 which leaves the school board of
the township safe margin beyond the two per
cent limitation. Counsel for plaintiffs contend
that this is not such an asset as can be consid-
cred now, They claim that the matter of the
Indebtedness of the one school district to another
is now before an auditor appointed in pursi-
ance OF the provisions of the act of assembly;
that he has not yet made his report and that
there is no Indebtedness owing by the one dis.
trict to the other until it is ascertained by the
final confirmation OF the auditor report. We
think that this position is clearly ,untenable.
What was the auditor appointed to doi lie was
appointed to adjust the property rights of the
TWO school districts and to ascertain how much,
II any, either district owed the other at the
time the Moosic school district came into being
u Is true that he has not yet filed his re.
port but when he does report he will report
the amount OF the Indebtedness of one district
10 the other as it existed before the awarding
OF the contracts complained of in this case on
April o. 1901, Notwithstanding the appointment
OF the auditor, We know of no principle of law
which would exclude the evidence offered in Tho
case at bar as to the indebtedness Of either dis.
trict to the other because the same subject mat
ter Is to come before us in another form. The
evidence shows that the Moosic school district
when 1t became fact, was In debt TO the old
school district. This was a tangible asset exist.
ing at that time and just as much of a debt
owing to the Lackawanna school district as anv
one OF the unpaid tax items on the duplicate n,
1900. y
Holding these views, we discharge the rule in
this case and preliminary injunction is re.
fused ii. N. Edwards r. j.