The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-04-22


were handed down yesterday by the
state appellate courts. The Superior
court, sitting in Pittsburg, affirmed
the finding of the local court that the
Scranton Gas and Water company, and
not the city councils, has authority to
fix the water rates.
The Supreme court, sitting in Phila :
delphia, reversed the finding of the local
court as to the compensation to be al
lowed George w. jenkins, as delinquent
tax collector, fixing it at $3.50 for the
three months covered by the period for
which Mr.. Jenkins brought suit. in
stead Of s72.5O. which was allowed him
by the local court on commission
basis. Other decisions were as follows:
SUPREME COURT.
1ripp estate, Ripple and Warren, executors 8
appeal; decree vacated
Tripp estate, Lackawanna Trust and Safe De.
post conpany's appeal; ruling reversed
Gearhart against the Clear Spring Water com.
pany; common pleas, Monroe county. Judgment
affirmed.
SUPERIOR COURT
Nettleton against Caryl: common pleas, Lack
awanna county. Judgment reversed.
Noonan against the Kingston Coal company:
common pleas, Luzcrne county. Judgment af.
frmed.
Moore against Everitt; common pleas, Monroe
county. Judgment affirmed.
The Schroeder case was brought to
test the validity of an ordinance passed
by councils fixing the water rates. Mr..
Schroeder received bill for water rent.
He rendered payment at the rates fixed
by the city ordinance. The company
refused to accept the tender and threat
ened to shut off the water supply from
Mr.. Schroeder's premises. Mr.. Schroe-
der went into equity court to prevent
this, alleging that the company could
not charge more than the city ordin-
ance provided.
MIR. BURNS CONTENTION.
J. II. Burns. Mr.. Schroeder's attor-
ney, argued that there was nothing in
the companys charter giving it the
right to fix the rates and that such
right rested with the city under the
general welfare" clause Of its delegat-
ed powers The company replied that
the legislature had fixed a definite man
ner Of revising rates charged by a water
company. which is to have each indiv-
idual complaining customer go into
court to secure a revision, and that this
and no other way was legal of revising
a cOmpany's rates.
Judge Edwards, in an opinion for the
local court coincided with the COM
pany's contention, and the superior
court now comedies with Judge Ed
wards. Major Everett Warren and
Congressman 0. Il. Olmstead. of Har-
risburg, represented the company.
The Jenkins delinquent tax collec tor
case went into the courts in the form
Of a case-stated.
April l, 1901, George w. Jenkins was
appointed by ex-Recorder James Moir
as collector of delinquent taxes under
the provisions of the second class city
act The act provided that the recor-
der shall appoint delinquent tax col
lector. 1t also contained a provision
that Councils may by ordinance pro-
vide that the city treasurer may be
appointed collector of delinquent taxes.
The "chaser" to the second class city
act, made the office of city treasurer
appointive instead of elective. The
second class city act fixed the compen-
sation of the collector at s5,000'per an
mum, but provided that councils might
reduce this to not less than 50, 500 per
annun.
The reorganization ordinance signed
by Recorder Moir, April g the day after
Mr.. jenkins entered upon the duties of
delinquent tax collector, provided that
the city treasurer should be made de-
tax collector and fixed his
at three -ffths Of five per
cent. of money collected ON real estate
and ten per cent. on all other taxes
Recorder Moir did not appoint the city
treasurer collector as was provided by
the ordinance he should do.
TERMS OF THE CASE.
Mr.. Jenkins brought suit for three
salary at the rate of $4,000 per
annum. In the case-stated 1t was
agreed that the court should say. first.
or not Jenkins was legally ap-
pointed delinquent tax collector, and
second, whether he should be compen-
sated at the rate of $4,000 per annum,
or by the commission fixed by ordin-
ance, which by calculation was found
to be $3.50.
The local court decided that Mr.. Jen-
Ixins was legally appointed collector, but
declined to go outside the facts in the
case-stated and say what would be the
effect of the recorder appointing the
city treasurer as delinquent tax col
lector, as was done by Recorder Con-
nell in July. while the case was pend
Ing AS to the compensation to which
Mr.. Jenkins was entitled, the court said
that it believed there was no room for
argument. but that it should be accord
ing to the percentage rate fixed by
The Supreme court agrees
with the local court in the finding that
Mr. Jenkins was the delinquent tax col
ector in April, May and June, but finds
that he was entitled to compensation at
The rate of $4,000 Il year, as provided by
The statute, councils having failed to
exercise it's prerogative of reducing II
10 mot less than s2.5O0."
The case is far from being finally |
settled. Mr.. Jenkins will likely sue for
he remainder of the $1,000. and insist |
lpon being recognized as the delinquent |
AK collector, despite the fact that the |
'ecorder in July last, in obedience TO |