Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1908-07-30
MANDAMUS ON
PROTHONOTARY

/
argument in the case of Edward W.
Peters VS. Thomas G. Vincent, a suit
involving costs on tax liens, which has
been before court for several years.
The action involves the recovery of
sl93. OF in the hands Of the prothono
tary, who refuses to pay it over, claim
ing superior right to the funds.
Hon. Fl. NJ. Hinckley, attorney for
Mr.. Peters, spoke for nearly an hour.
He brought out the following facts:
During December, 1903, 394 tax
liens were entered by Prothonotary
Vincent in the proper docket. The
liens were for delinquent taxes of
1902 and the right was claimed to file
them under the act of 1901. The
amounts of delinquent taxes represent
ed from two dollars up to ten dollars.
In each case separate COR FOUR liens
were entered, the tax costs on each
amounting to S9.70. producing a total
OF S31 or s3S against each person. The
costs in each case amounted TO more
than the tax.
The act Of 1901, he said. provides
that liens filed by municipalities must
be signed by the solicitor and the
chief executive officer Of the same. In
the present case he held that the tax
liens were not filed by the municipal
titles, neither were they signed BY the
solicitor nor chief executive officer
and were wholly unauthorized.
When the act of 1901 was passed Ed.
W. Peters, the tax receiver, was in
structed by the attorney that it was
his uty to produce list ofIdelinqu-
en- tax payers and have liens entered
mp. Later the municipalities-the
county, the borough the school and
poor distriots-refused to accept these
liens and held E. W. Peters, the tax
receiver, responsible.
A dozen or more who had fallen in
arrears with their taxes and on whom
liens held appeared at the prothonot-
ary' office and made payment. The
aggregate sum represented by liens
thus paid in, exclusive of costs. amounts
TO sl93. Of. which sum is still in the
prothonotary hands. The latter, how
ever, wishes to apply this sum to the
payment of costs on other liens.
The sum in question, however. Mr..
Hinckley held, is due the tax re-
ceiver, who has settled with the differ
ent municipalities He held that the
prothonotary had no authority to en-.
ter the liens and assailed the charges.
expenses and fees, which he said
formed the bulk Of the amount. Citing
one case the costs were over SIS, while
the taxes involved were less than $40.
Mr.. Hinckley said that he would
not impute any impure motive, but all
the liens. lie declared, were illegally
filed or entered ana for that reason he
held the prothonotary was not entitl.
ed to one cent for his services.
Reviewing the case still further Mr..
Hlnckley stated that the borough, the
county, the poor and the school lis
trict in whose names the liens had
been filed, refused to pay the costs.
Later the court made an order requir-
ing the prothonotary to pay the money
in his hands over TO Mr.. Peters. The
latter, he held, was no party to the
record and therefore could not be
charged with the costs on the other
liens. which were not entered bv him.
In conclusion he held that the delipau-
ent taxpayer in satisfying the lien had
no right to pay the money over to the
prothonotary and he raised the uues-
tion whether such persons might not
now be held responsible for the amount
which Mr.. Peters is seeking to recov
er.
MR.. AMMERMAN'S ADDRESS.
Hon. r. S. zimmerman, who was
the solicitor for tax receiver Peters
when the liens were filed, but who at
present is attorney for Mr.. Vincent,
made an able defense, not only Justify
ing his own course in advising that
liens be filed, &C., but also sustaining
the prothonotary in his refusal to pay
to Mr.. Peters the money he received
ON liens The legality Of the liens, Mr..
zimmerman said, was admitted by the
relator himself, while the delinquents
who paid the money over to the pro-
thonotary, acquiesced in the Justice
OF the proceeding, paying the penalty.
Mr.. zimmerman explained that Mr..
Peters came to him for advice. The
act Of 1901 was new They consulted
Mr. Scarlet, who advised that they
proceed to enter liens. Tax Receiver
Peters himself. Mr.. zimmerman said.
ordered the liens to be entered. Furth-
er, he held that no rule has ever been
made on the pFothonotary to pay the
MONEY into court. Neither has any at.
tempt as yet been made to adjust the
costs,
In defense of.his own course. in en-
tering three dollars, attorney fees, as
a part OF the charges, expenses and
a part of the charges, expenses and
feesH Mr.. Ammefman held that there
is not at lien entered anywhere in
which the above sum as attorney fee
lis not allowed. He insisted that the
80 antiklad 20 tbaa q lido M