*1 knowingly tbe were submitted, case was wbicb, made. fraudulently tbe of tbe entire learned charge
A careful reading that tbe trial to tbe conclusion issues judge leads us tbe defi- fairly presented jury were found therein ciencies or inaccuracies wbicb more^ to tbe defendant than tbe detrimental plaintiff. n affirmed. Judgment Hollobaugh. Township v.
Rose *2 April Argued P. 1955. Before Rhodes, Ross, J., JJ. (Hirt Wright, Woodside, Gunther, JJ., absent). Ervin, appellant. McKnipht, for
William J. *3 Raymond E. Brown, him Donald J. with Dennison,, appellee. D. Stauffеr, and Thomas August 1955: Opinion 3, Woodside, J., by legality appeal questions a tax resolu- of the This passed by township the class subse- of second tion a adoption the re- quent in which of a the contemplated. ceipts the tax were not from Township Supervisors the the of On March 1952 3, adopted County for the a of in .Rose Jefferson January Monday year beginning first of on the fiscal January Monday ending 1953 of the first 1952 and by required The Class Town- 902 of Second section ship May L. P. 103 as amеnded of 1, 1933, July by L. P. 1481 Act 10, 1947, reenacted the §19093-902. in 53 PS further 1949, amended day adopted super- By the same resolution upon mills a tax of nine real estate visors levied township. of the May legally supervisors, after the
On 1952 26, by required prior publication of their intention notice adopted purporting so to a resolution do, upon tax theaters to be collected admissions drive-in July January until 1953. The resolu- 1, 5, imposed general tion set forth that the tax was “for purposes pursuancе provisions revenue of the of the Act of June P. L. as amended” 25, 1947, September Act of and that year township beginning “for fiscal the first Monday January ending Mon- 1952 and first day January 1953.” provided
The resolution further “The as follows: judgment reason of the said which, supervisors, imposition of said necessitates the repair tax is the roads.
“The amount revenue estimated to be derived from such tax is $2,000.00”. opened who theater defendant, drive-in township, pay refused to the tax levied undеr year
aforesaid resolution for and the town- ship assumpsit. him sued complaint,
After a second amended an answer reply plaintiff’s thereto with new matter and a plaintiff judgment a motion filed, was made pleadings. on the Judge
President for the court below dis- Morris judgment missed the motion and entered de- appeal fendant. This followed. *4 questions presented
Two are to both of which us, against township. the lower court decided questions by appellant, These are stated in sub- stantially languаge they by the same as were stated the court as follows: below, Supervisors township
“1. Where the of a of the adopt budget, in second class the manner with- prescribed by may they, approximately in the time law, two months under the Act of June later, P. L. 25, 1947, 29, 1951, Act of September amended by as
1145, ad- upon a tax levy et seq.), PS P. L. 1640 (53 §2015.1 revenue the estimated theaters, to drive-in missions an item as such budget not included which was from appropriated not and was anticipated revеnues of purposes? other or highway therein of the of a Supervisors “2. Where the of adoption simultaneously with class, second man- in the at time and their annual budget, nine (9) tax of an annual by levy ner provided law, of taxable of assessed valuation on each dollar mills bridge for ‘road, said township, property the maximum which is township purposes’, general of the without permitted by approval law millage Quarter provided by of Section Sessions, Court P. L. as last amend- A-l the Act of May 103, 1,1933, P. PS 19093- the Act of L. 370 by May 1951, (53 ed 24, they obtain, may they later, did 905), tax on the admissions drive-in same year, under June theaters the Act of 1145, P. September amended Act of L. 1951, ?” PS et (53 seq.) §2015.1 A either or negative foregoing- answer to both of necessarily law questions will invalidate the resolution of purported May have been levied 1952. here precise presented have never questions decided by been courts. The appellate will answers a matter of be of the importance operation gov- ernments of our political sub-divisions.
A brief review of the legislative history rele- statutes may helpful. vant As the original sources almost income, entirely proved in- real-estate, sufficient to meet the increasing costs of local' govern-. pressure ments, brought upon the legislature authorize the tapping previously forbidden fields of *5 legislature passed the As result the above taxation. Act No. 481 be- act of becamе known as which frequent to it before the cause reference was made so any- pamphlet published) and “tax laws as the were thing” aptly it). (because phase so describes act, revolutionary in in that it an It reversed sense, was, governmental spelling age policy old in detail out governments a limited local field within which could tax. This sake shall convenience we act, political hereafter refer to as Act authorized sub- anything. with a divisions, few Thus limitations, passed policy saying the state from a to its subdivi- nothing saying any- except”, sions “tax one “tax thing except.” originally emergency
It was conceived as an act, accepted permanent but can now as a Common- new policy wealth on local taxation. originally passed,
As this act related to cities of boroughs, second third second, andA, classes, townships of the first towns, and school dis- class, tricts of the third and fourth second, classes. Subse- Sеptember quently, the amendment of 29,1951, townships 1640 was extended to cover of the second although they per- class, the fields within which were specified mitted to tax were and limited. passage developed
Prior to the of Act 481 there had important a number of codifications of the into law Among which the act had be correlated. them Borough The General Code reenacted 1947 as The Borough City The Third Code, Class Law reenacted City in 1951 as The Third Class The First Class Cоde, Township Law reenacted in 1949 as The First Class Township Township Code, Second Class Law re- enacted 1947 as The Second Class Code School Code reenacted 1949 as the Public School 1949. *6 relating provision to the has a of these codes
Each setting provision forth what budget. a Each also has may be the taxes which limit of and the taxed be imposed. years through many developed
All these codes were recodi- supplements, and modifications amendments, of Many provisions in im- similar are of their fications. Ordinarily language. a when port, but different operation of these change governmental of in the appropriate government is intended units of local are manner the draftsmen In this amended. code is provi- the various and consolidate coordinate able to single possible greater a than is when skill sions with prepared to all codes.1 is to relate act expected com- that Act It to be governmental policy pletely whose lan- and reversed guage purpose all the dif- correlated to had to be and prob- many pose and difficult new would ferent codes, government legal profession and local both lems of them. officials. This is one particu- upon entering a discussion of Before problems might rules to forth certain lar it be well set thinking. guide our place a mu-
In be remembered that the first must upon nicipal corporation no taxes inhabitants can plainly powеr property their unless the to do so is or legislature. unmistakably conferred right strictly grant must be construed and not such of by implication. Breitinger Philadelphia, v. extended (1950); A. 2d 640 Hillman Coal 363 Pa. 70 512, 514, 1 Legislative early As a of establishment of result Bureau, personnel through years, Reference its talented by legislators, its extensive use of statutes this Commonwealth any government are as well drafted as those nation. Bill drafting difficult, however, approach perfection is so even impossible.
291 Twp., 300 Pa. 150 A. Co. Jenner & Coke v. (1930). 481 to im Act authorizes strictly pose must authorization con taxes such against township. Pittsburgh, Fischer v. strued Superior (1955). 178 Pa. A. 2d 814 Ct. 16, place In the second to determine intent of the legislature in a kind we cannot matter of this confine particular phrases our consideration to a few Act but addition there- and the codes must involved, give purpose careful attention to the intent and phrases governed the entire To be acts. few iso- body question, latеd from the acts without *7 considering might their relation to the as a acts whole, destroy purpose legislature defeat and the which statutory provisions. pages of has devoted guides With these let us turn to The mind Sec- Township supra, ond Class which we shall here- Code, Township after refer to as the Code. provides great
Section 902 detail matters relat- ing adoption setting budget, of the forth the procedure time when it be must done, that must given, be the notices that must be followed, the forms many that must be and similar used, as refer- matters, requires ence thereto will indicate. It expenditures show estimated revenues and includ- ing money necessary (a) amount for roads, (b) bridges, (c) equipment, culverts machinery, and implements, (d) governmental and teams each other (e) activity, purposes. other debts and miscellaneous itemizing expenditures pur- This of estimated is for pose determining levy. much tax to how budget required
The is more than a mere estimаte probable expenditures. revenues and It is a method whereby expenditures are controlled and limited dur- ing period by designating the fiscal the amount of money legally disposal supervisors at the of the
292 expended. v. purpose Kistler Superior 35 Ct. Pa. 299, 154
Carbon County, provisions (1943). are These A. 2d 733 mandatory.’' degree highest directory “in the but 459A. Philadelphia, 172 Leary Pa. 458, 472, 314 v. (1934). Supreme required strict com such Court has provisions
pliance
that town
of this section
with the
supervisоrs
office
ship
have
removed
been
supervisors
comply
even when
failure to
with them,
required
depending upon
to file
their solicitor
reports.
Appeal,
A.
457
26
2d
In
Tax
Dunkard
School
Case,
permitted
(1948) the court
a school
right not but also to to revise additional to the fiscal for revenue was limited one year. budgets concerning in the sec-
Provisions have been many budg- years, class law ond for but the imposed upon etary requirements supervisors have years. passing more and become strict detailed with the municipal good It is vital administration budget expenditures affairs for to for the its officials necessary thereby determine the amount functions and necessary operation municipality of tax for the of the ensuing pro- year. purpose It for the was tecting public against extravаgance and waste government budget provisions local that the were made stringent years more over the both statutes and court decisions. change provisions
Act 481 not was intended to relating budgets. budgets. to It did not deal with Nothing in its title indicates it relates provisions in the codes. act as amended in 1951 designed change was the limitation im- on taxation posed by Township section 905 of the Code. (53 §19093-905)provides
Section 905 PS that town- ship supervisors may levy bridges taxes for and rоads, general purposes upon occupations real estate and exceeding except upon petition nine mills, court quarter sessions which authorize an increase of not over five It mills. further authorizes taxes purposes lighting, such other hydrants, fire fire fighting parks. equipment, and In each instant the amount limits imposed, tax which can be outlines circumstance under which it can imposed. imposition It upon authorizes of tax nothing except occupations real estate and on only expressed. these within the limits there correspond- It was the sections in the various codes ing Township to section 905 of the Code, and not corresponding sections (the budget pro- to section vision), emergency which created brought provision about Act 481. It was the in all the codes corresponding to section 905 of the designed which Act 481 change, and which in effect are amended Act 481. *9 says specifi- argues aрpellant that no statute districts) tax im-
cally (except when to school as authority 481 must be posed Act levied, the under budget says: “Said the 902 of Section nearly possible reve- the estimated as as shall reflect year the expenditures of the and nues ours) prepared.” (Emphasis budget is the budget, proposed budget” and The “said refers supervisors nor the courts neither the that be sure possible” meaning of “as near as misunderstand budg- proposed legislature prоvides that where percent aggregate than ten more et increased percent in an individual item, than 25 or more presumed budget inaccurate,” “shall tentative adopted. before readvertised “budget says code When section . . . for the revenues . . the estimated reflect . shall imposed from taxes year,” revenues realized it means authority as 481 as amended well of Act under the imposed under section from taxes realized revenues imposed Act 481 taxes under If revenues 905. budget it is included a vio- not amended are 902. of section lation municipality enact could to decide
If we were appropriate proceeds legislation there- new tax adopted, to a would, we from after provisions destroy great re- the value of extent, budgets. lating not the think that was intent We passing legislature Act 481 and amend- its ments. straight-jacket put in a are
Local officials authority provisions. They to meet hаve emergencies. expenses unexpected But unforeseen definitely control their ex- seeks to limit and the law penditures. *10 snpra, contains Tlie Code,
Section 902 of following: “ any supervisors may (4) resolu- time The at any supplemental appropriations lawful tion make purpose to be funds on hand or estimated from ap- year and not otherwise the fiscal received within any borrowing proceeds propriated, including the appropriations supplemental аuthorized law. Such appropriation or not an be made whether original budget purpose included same was supplemental appropriation adopted, except that no respect any purpose in made for shall be appeal pursuant to section nine hundred court on an eight specific of this act ordered a reduction or has budget original for the elimination an item of purpose. same supervisors may by
“(5) transfer Thе resolution, moneys township one account to unencumbered from moneys but be transferred from the no shall another, any' payment of debts or allocated for the fund particular by special pur- a raised fund during pose. shall not be made Such transfers year three the fiscal ...” first months of relating districts and other munici- Laws to school carry palities provisions, but have different out, principle. varying degrees, the same budget prevent very purpose a situа- of a is to The very probably happened in this After such case. tion supervisors suddenly adopted dis- pre- of taxation which had covered a new source township. viously Had not this new existed un- been discovered, source revenue operated according budg- doubtedly would have of revenue But with new sources new available, et. planned. expenditures The and increased expenditures probably although need for increased did not. proсedure from that which is
This is the reverse budget. contemplated municipal the function of preparation municipal budget contemplates of a expenditures necessary and then a determination imposition required of the tax to meet them. municipalities power generally, If un- to tax whose imagination der Act 481 almost as the as unlimited *11 permitted impose were now to a tax almost man, any any thing any purpose at conceivable for allowed budg- adopting budget, why time after the of a have a et?
Considering requirements by imposed all the stat- relating budgeting, interpretation ute and the strict placed upon provisions by think these we courts, township supervisors authority levy had no a general purposes highway purposes tax or for year subsequent adoption budg- of their contemplated et not therein. argued
It is that since the Public School Code of (24 March §6-603), 10,1949, PS in Section 603 by separate specific provision a limits school dis- only levy tricts year, one of school in taxes each Township while The Second Class Code contains no provision, legislature such did not intend to limit townships time when could taxes authorized by Act 481 as amended. provision
This of the Public School Code has been present in the law since before the statutes and the- municipal budgeting adopted. ories Because separate prohibits section of the school code the im- position of school year, more taxes than once a it does budget provisions not follow that the of The Second Township Class require Code could not the estimated revenue a tax budget. to be included in the We does require think section 902 of to be included each year the estimated revenue the budget of that year. in one act does specific
Because such a is provision be that it cannot implied mean necessarily different another. language
In Act 481 by pro- 1953 the amended legislature inter or resolution ordinance viding, “Every alia, act tax under of this imposes authority impose only shall tax for one and shall such year or passed a sehool during adopted, district, if for to be period other taxes are law required by school levied . . and assessed such district.” . (emphasis supplied)
It is argued that this indicates that been has intent of the that all legislature political subdivisions except schоol impose any districts authorized Act 481 at after has time, —that adopted. been there is
Although nothing this illogical argu- its use ment, aspects has which should practical give *12 courts cause to It is a pause. permitting legislature, met which after the case before us to “this arose, say is what was meant and intended statute under which case a arose.” As rule the general legisla- ture has no say right subsequent to to time a case arises what it meant aby enacted previously statute If governs the case. we to give weight to the plaintiffs on argument this point many litigants might be abandon wise to for lawyers as lobbyists, their case not so might depend much what the court persuaded is to as decide what the legislature is per- suaded to do.
On the second we do not question agree with the learned lower Section court. 905 of the Township Code, provides, §19093-905
53 PS inter alia, follows: township gen- “1. An bridge, annual for tax road, township purposes, erаl not later than the fourth Mon- day year, exceeding of March of each- nine mills. supervisors by majority Where the board of a action, upon petition quar- due shall, cause the court of shown, right levy ter millage, sessions for the to additional public may after such court, notice direct and hearing, greater after order a rate than nine mills exceeding but not five additional to levied. mills, Such annual tax shall include all levies bridge general township purposеs.” road, following: “Any imposed Act 481 contains the subject under this act shall not be to limitation existing under law as to rate or amount.” 53 PS §2015.6. pro-
Section 905, not the was section, vision change which Act 481 as intended amended, expand. We think it clear that the limitation on the amount supra, of tax contained clause 1, was apply only millage meant to tax referred to in imposed that clause and not to a tax under Act 481 legislature as amended. made it clear that limitation contained in section 905 did not limit or prevent imposition of a tax under Act 481 as provided amended. The resolution that the tax it was imposing general purposes as is authorized said act. necessary
It supervisors is not petition for quarter right court of impose sessions for tax under Act as amended if even of nine mills is year, made for the same super- nor are prevented imposing visors a tax under Act 481 using proceeds as amended and its purposes, rоad *13 merely they levy because a tax of nine mills for road purposes year. for the same This, course, assumes
299 that the resolution the tax under authorized levying Act 481 as is at the time. amended, passed proper
Although the motion was made
plaintiff
judgment
the record
lower
it
court entered
the defendant. Under Pa. R. C. P.
(b) judgment
1034
on the
may be entered
pleadings
party entitled
thereto without regard to which
moved for
party
judg-
ment. Boron v.
Pa.
For the set reasons forth opinion this the judg- ment is affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion J.: Wright, Bacon wisely Lord said that judges function of is jus I dicere, dare. that jus respectfully submit the majority opinion judicial constitutes legislation. The result once second class that, adopted has its annual with sec- conformity tion 902 of the Second Act of Class Code, May P. L. 1933, 53 PS 103, amended, 19093-902, it is thereafter from prohibited a tax under levying Act 481 of June amended, PS 2015.1 et Had Act seq. legislature intended 481 to be limited thus it would said have so. Neither the title nor body of thе statute indica- gives any tion whatever such a result was contemplated. The majority opinion something reads into Act is not there.
Nor does the annual a second class town- ship possess the sacred character given by the ma- jority opinion. Section 902 the Second Class Town- ship expressly provides that supervisors may at time supplemental make appropriations funds on hand or to be estimated received “whether or not an apрropriation for the same purpose in- *14 adopted”. original It should
eluded the Second connection that further noted this prohibit more than one does not Class year, the Public School Code. each as does majority opinion Finally, com- and above all, disregards legislative interpretation pletely of Act Statutory 51 of the Construction Act 481. See section May §551. What better P. L. PS 1019, judge legislative than intention can there be legislature itself. Act 481 was amended the Act of “Every May fоllows: 27, ordinance imposes authority a tax under or resolution which passed adopted, of this Act shall... be or school if for during period other school taxes are re- district, quired by law to be levied and assessed such dis- (italics supplied)”. trict This amendment shows con- clusively legislature that the intention of the was, and political except school is, subdivisions, districts, may impose under the taxes statute at time. judgment
I would reverse the of the lower court, judgment appellant. and would here enter for the Appellant, Commonwealth ex rel. v. DeSimone, Maroney.