12 A.2d 333 | Pa. | 1940
At the audit of the account of the administrator of Jacob Erny, deceased, two claims were presented for amounts expended in the maintenance of decedent's adult insane indigent son at the Philadelphia General Hospital, the Philadelphia Hospital for Mental Diseases at Byberry, and the Norristown State Hospital, from January 27, 1927, to September 5, 1938, the date of Erny's death, one by the Commonwealth for $2,812.58 and the other by the City of Philadelphia for $437.14. The claims were made under the Acts of June 1, 1915, P. L. 661, section 3, and section 28 of the Act of June 13, *544 1836, P. L. 539 (repealed by section 702 of the Act of June 24, 1937, P. L. 2017).
The claims of the City of Philadelphia admittedly accrued more than six years prior to the death of Erny, and the balance of his estate for distribution being insufficient to pay both the city and Commonwealth in full, the Commonwealth urged the bar of the statute of limitations against the city's claim. The auditing judge ruled that the claims of the city were not subject to the bar of the statute and should be paid in full.
Unless the statute of limitations can be successfully interposed, it is conceded that the claim of the city is entitled to precedence over that of the Commonwealth: seeMetcalf's Estate,
The Commonwealth contends, as it must, that the city's claim falls within Section 1 of the Act of March 27, 1713, 1 Sm. Laws 76, limiting "actions of debt grounded upon any lending or contract without specialty," and further that the claim is not within the class of claims which are immune from the operation of the statute by reason of the fact that they accrue to the municipality in its governmental capacity.
At common law, the mere fact that an adult demented person is incapable of caring for himself raises no obligation on his parents' part to support him except possibly *545
where the child was living with them and was incompetent when reaching majority: Loyalsock Twp. Overseers v. Eldred Twp.Overseers,
It is contracts in fact and not constructive or quasi-contracts, properly defined in Hertzog v. Hertzog,
Even if the claim of the city were within the terms of the statute of limitations, nevertheless the statute could *546
not be interposed to bar it. While ordinarily the immunity of the sovereign from the operation of the limitation statutes against it does not extend to municipalities (Evans v. ErieCounty,
That the maintenance and treatment of indigent, infirm and mentally defective persons is a strictly governmental function cannot be questioned: Commonwealth v. Liveright et al.,
The Commonwealth relies upon Geisler's Estate,
Appellant also relies upon In Re Margaret McCanna,
The decree of the court below is affirmed at appellant's cost.