McGinley v. Hendershot
McGinley v. Hendershot
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
This appeal is from an order directing a mandamus to issue to compel the payment of salary due to the appellee as a building superintendent of the court house at Wilkes-Barre. For the successful prosecution of the appellee’s case in the court below, it must appear that his claim is founded on express statutory authority, or arising from a statute by necessary implication: Wayne County v. Waller, 90 Pa. 99. It is the duty of county commissioners to keep court houses in suitable condition, and it is within their power to select the persons to do this work: Act of April 15, 1834, P. L. 539; Act of June 24, 1895, P. L. 236. The compensation of the employees of Luzerne County is regulated by the Act of April 4, 1907, P. L. 58. It provides for a board, consisting of the county controller and the county commissioners, whose duty it shall be to fix and determine the number and compensation of the employees of all county
The so-called Salary Board Act of 1907, in Section 1, provides, inter alia: “That the county controller and the county commissioners be and they are hereby constituted a board......whose duty it shall be to fix and determine, in the manner herein provided.......” Section 2 of the same act directs “That the said board shall meet from time to time when required by any county officer...... the number and compensation of whose employees is sought to be fixed and determined.” These are the only provisions in the act specifying when and how the board shall exercise the powers therein conferred. There is nothing in the act which requires the board to meet when its membership changes. In fact, the direction to meet when called by any county officer, is persuasive of a legislative intention that the board was only to meet when necessary changes were to be made. While the personnel of the board may change, the board as such is a continuing body, and its orders and directions continue in effect until changed by the board. Positions created by the board do not continue indefinitely. Future boards ate
The assignment of error'is overruled and the judgment of the court below is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.