Slattery v. Hendershot

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May 10, 1920

Slattery v. Hendershot, 267 Pa. 402 (Pa. 1920)

110 A. 147; 1920 Pa. LEXIS 877

Brown, Frazer, Kephart, Simpson, Stewart, Walling

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The County of Luzerne contains more than one hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants, and its district attorney is a salaried officer, whose salary is compensation for all services rendered by him in his official capacity: Schuylkill County v. Wiest, 257 Pa. 425; and the Act of May 19,1887, P. L. 138, in so far as it provides compensa*404tion for him in addition to his salary for the performance of his official duties, wherever rendered, is in conflict with the constitutional limitation upon what he is to receive. This was the obviously correct conclusion of the Superior Court in reversing the judgment of the court below, under which the appellant would have received compensation to which he is not entitled: 72 Pa. Superior Ct. 240.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: Public officers — District attorney — Compensation—Salaried officers — Counties with over 150,000 inhabitants — Constitutional law —Act of May 19, 1887, P. L. 188. 1. In counties containing more than one hundred and fifty-thousand inhabitants, the district attorney is a salaried officer, whose salary is compensation for all services rendered by him in his official capacity. 2. In so far as the Act of May 19, 1887, P. L. 138, provides compensation for the district attorney in addition to his salary for the performance of his official duties, wherever rendered, it is in conflict with the constitutional limitation upon what he is to receive. 3. A district attorney of a county with over one hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants is not entitled to recover compensation in addition to his salary, for services rendered in an appeal by the Commonwealth in a criminal case.