Com. ex rel. Harkins v. Hinkson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Com. ex rel. Harkins v. Hinkson, 161 Pa. 266 (Pa. 1894)
28 A. 1081; 1894 Pa. LEXIS 683
Dean, Fell, McCollum, Mitchell, Williams
Com. ex rel. Harkins v. Hinkson
Opinion of the Court
Vigilance on the part of all officers intrusted with the disbursement or oversight of public moneys cannot be commended too highly. It is better to err on the side of safety than on that of carelessness or extravagance. In this case we think the controller has carried official vigilance beyond the limits of his official authority.
The writ of mandamus was properly issued, and the action of the court below is fully vindicated by the opinion of the learned judge who directed the writ.
The order is now affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Com. ex rel. Harkins v. Hinkson, City Treasurer
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Mandamus — Public officers — Salaries. Where a judgment has been obtained by a policeman against a city for services, the city cannot object, in mandamus proceedings to collect the judgment, that plaintiff’s contract of employment with the city was invalid. Where the city has sufficient funds in its treasury applicable to the payment of such a debt, it cannot object that when the appropriation was made the existing force of policemen was seventeen men, that plaintiff and four others were employed subsequently, and that if plaintiff’s claim wei’e paid, the fund would be insufficient to pay the original seventeen men during the whole year for which the appropriation was made.