Case Name: York County v. Thompson, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1905-06-22
Citations: 212 Pa. 561
Docket Number: Appeals, Nos. 205 and 206
Parties: York County v. Thompson, Appellant.
Judges: Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Potter and Elkin, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 212
Pages: 561–562

Head Matter:
York County v. Thompson, Appellant.
Judgment—Opening judgment—Report of county auditors—Appeal nunc pro tunc—Public officers.
A judgment against a county treasurer entered on a report of county auditors, although unappealed from within the statutory period will be opened, and the county allowed an appeal nunc pro tunc, where depositions, in support of a petition to open, show that the county was defrauded. In. such a case it is for a jury to determine how far the treasurer is a party to the fraud, or responsible for the loss.
Argued May 15, 1905.
Appeals, Nos. 205 and 206, Jan. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. York Co., Jan. T., 1901, No. 195, and Jan. T., 1902, No. 228, opening judgment and allowing an appeal nunc pro tunc in case of York County v. William O. Thompson.
Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Potter and Elkin, JJ.
Affirmed.
Petition to open a judgment entered against the county treasurer on report of county auditors, and for leave to appeal nunc pro tunc. Before Bitteng-er, P. J. *
After Zeigler’s Petition, 207 Pa. 181, was decided, and the record of the case returned to the lower court, depositions were taken which tended to show that the county was defrauded, and that the defendant was a party to the fraud. The court made an order opening the judgment and permitting the county to appeal nunc pro tunc.
JError assigned was the order of the court.
Henry C. Niles, with him George JE. Neff., for appellant.
J. S. Black, with him JE. J). Zeigler, county solicitor, and Charles A. Hawkins, for appellee.
June 22, 1905 :

Opinion:
Pee Curiam,
The law governing this case was settled when the case was here before, Zeigler's Petition, 207 Pa. 131, and in accordance with that decision the court below had evidence on which to open the judgment.
That the county was defrauded is not denied, and how far the appellant was party to the fraud or responsible for the loss is, under the evidence, clearly a question for a jury.
Judgment affirmed.