129 A. 92 | Pa. | 1925
Argued April 15, 1925.
By an act of assembly, applicable to Luzerne County (March 24, 1905, P. L. 47), provision was made for the *347
appointment of a "Board for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes," and such a commission was selected by the court of common pleas. An engineer was appointed by it in 1916, and the one chosen served until 1924, when another was selected. The county commissioners, with a representative of the department to be affected, was constituted a salary board, by the Act of April 4, 1907, P. L. 58, with power "to fix and determine the number and compensation of the employees of any and all county officers, boards, bureaus, departments, and divisions thereof, whether elected by the people or appointed according to law." The right to appeal from any conclusion reached was given, with the provision that the judgment of the court on the question submitted should be final. This was practically the same regulation as found in the Act of 1876 (March 31, P. L. 13), which directed, in part, "after such decision is made, [if] any officer shall think the number of his clerks or deputies is too few, or the compensation fixed for either is too small, as the same may have been determined by the board, he may appeal from the action thereof to the judge or judges of the court of common pleas of the county in which he is an officer, who shall hear and determine such appeal as promptly as possible, and their decision thereon shall be final." The two acts last referred to are to be read together, and control the situation now presented: Davis v. Moore,
The first question which arises is that of jurisdiction, in view of the declaration in the Act of 1876, as well as that of 1907, that the action of the court below shall be final. Under such circumstances, the record must be *348
considered as before us on certiorari alone, without right on our part to pass upon the merits of the controversy, provided the decree made was within the power of the tribunal which entered it. Since the Act of 1919 (April 8, P. L. 72), we may now examine the proofs in such cases to determine whether there is any evidence to warrant the findings of the trial court to sustain the action complained of, and also to test the right to make any order: Hand's Case,
It will be noted that the petition, asking for a reversal of the action of the salary board, made no claim of necessity for an additional "clerk," but demanded the appointment of an engineer. Such an officer is clearly not within the class of persons whose duty is ordinarily that of amanuensis, bookkeeper, scrivener, secretary or accountant: 11 C. J. 841; Maginnis v. Schlottman,
It follows from what has been said that the court of common pleas was without authority on appeal from the salary board to add an additional employee, in fact an *349 engineer, though called a "coal clerk," and fix the compensation for his services. Having no jurisdiction to so direct, the sole assignment of error must be sustained.
The order of the court below is reversed at the costs of appellee.