Case Name: Pennsylvania Distilling Company, Inc., v. Gelder et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1944-03-20
Citations: 349 Pa. 13
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 6
Parties: Pennsylvania Distilling Company, Inc., v. Gelder et al., Appellants.
Judges: Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson, Stearns and Hughes, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 349
Pages: 13–14

Head Matter:
Pennsylvania Distilling Company, Inc., v. Gelder et al., Appellants.
Argued January 14, 1944.
Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson, Stearns and Hughes, JJ.
Harry F. Stambaugh, with him Horace A. Segelbaum, Deputy Attorney General, and James H. Duf, Attorney General, for appellants.
Thomas D. Caldwell, of Caldwell, Fow & Stoner, for appellee.
March 20, 1944:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Maxey,
The Pennsylvania Distilling Company filed its claim for |12,794.28 for liquors sold by it to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. The Board claimed credit of this sum on the basis of alleged discounts earned. The claim was heard by the Auditor General and the State Treasurer under the Act of March 30,1811, P. L. 145, 5 Sm. L. 228, Sec. 29, amended by the Fiscal Code of 1929, P. L. 343, Secs. 1003-1004, and this tribunal awarded the claim-ant the total sum claimed. No petition for settlement or review was filed by the Liquor Control Board. The Board refused to pay the award and a petition for mandamus was presented to the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. The return filed by the Liquor Control Board set up the defense that the Auditor General and State Treasurer failed to request the advice of the Attorney General on the légal questions involved and refused to accept and follow the law set forth in the brief of the Department of Justice. The Court below directed a peremptory mandamus to issue for payment of the award to the Distilling Company.
For the reasons set forth in our opinion filed contemporaneously herewith in the case of the Merchants' Warehouse Company v. Gelder, 349 Pa. 1, in which the same legal question is involved, the judgment of the Court below is affirmed.