Case Name: Charles E. Gable v. E. M. Patterson, Treasurer and James A. Gilmore, Clerk of Court of Quarter Sessions, Appellants
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1900-02-16
Citations: 12 Pa. Super. 490
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 8
Parties: Charles E. Gable v. E. M. Patterson, Treasurer and James A. Gilmore, Clerk of Court of Quarter Sessions, Appellants.
Judges: Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlad y, W. W. Porter, W. D. Porter and Beeber, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 490–491

Head Matter:
Charles E. Gable v. E. M. Patterson, Treasurer and James A. Gilmore, Clerk of Court of Quarter Sessions, Appellants.
Argued May 9, 1899.
Appeal, No. 8, April T., 1899, by defendants, from order of C. P. Mercer Co., April T., 1898, No. 20, directing repayment to plaintiff of the sum of $200 paid as excessive license fees.
Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlad y, W. W. Porter, W. D. Porter and Beeber, JJ.
Reversed.
Opinion by W. D. Porter, J.
Petition for Avrit of mandamus. Before Miller, P. J.
It appears from the record that this case was argued with the preceding case of Davis v. Patterson, ante, p. 479, and that the facts were substantially the same, excepting that the court below made the following order :
[And noAv, April 8, 1898, it being admitted in the argument-of this case that the said Charles E. Gable has paid to Ellis M. Patterson, treasurer of Mercer county, the sum of $402.75 to obtain the license granted as set forth in his petition'for a mandamus, the said Ellis M. Patterson is hereby ordered and directed to repay to the said Charles E. Gable the sum of $200, less the reasonable costs of this proceeding.] [1]
Defendant appealed.
Error assigned among others was in directing the repayment of $200 by the county treasurer to the plaintiff, Gable, in the final order made, reciting said order.
James D. Emery and Q. A. Gordon, with them H. H. Zeigler, for appellants.
W. II. Ooohran, with him Ohas. N. McQlure and A. W. Williams, for appellee.
February 16, 1900:

Opinion:
Opinion by
W. D. Porter, J.,
All the questions presented by this record have been considered in the case of Davis v. Patterson, ante, p. 479, in which an opinion has this day been filed.
In the present case the judgment entered by the learned court below was diametrically opposed to that in the case of Davis v. Patterson et al., which we have just affirmed. It necessarily follows that we must in this appeal sustain the assignments of error.
Judgment reversed.