97 Pa. 328 | Pa. | 1881
delivered the opinion of the court, March 14th 1881.
Upon him also is imposed “ all the duties now enjoined on county auditors by the laws of this state, and he shall scrutinize, audit and settle all accounts whatever in which the city is concerned.”
But the powers of county auditors are as full and complete, within their jurisdiction, as are the powers of courts. They may issue subpoenas for parties and witnesses; they may compel the production of books and papers, administer oaths, compel the attendance of witnesses, and punish contempts by attachment. With all this judicial and deliberative power, the controller of the city of Reading is clothed, and of necessity he must be left free to exercise his own judgment. But how can he exercise these important functions if he is to be controlled in his judgment by the Court of Common Pleas, or by any other court ?
In the present case, Controller Runkle, for reasons satisfactory to himself, refused to approve the warrants drawn in favor of Koppelman ; this he had a right to do ; this it was his duty to do, if he believed the interests of the city would be protected by the refusal of such approval, and we know of no power in the Common Picas to substitute its judgment for that of this officer. Had the controller refused to act in the matter at all, the court by its mandamus might have compelled him to act, but this was all it could do, but after ho had acted, and had refused to sanction the warrants, it was a mere piece of usurpation on the part of the court to attempt to compel him to revise his decision, and adopt its judgment in preference to his own.
The rule governing cases of this kind may be stated as follows:
But the court was wrong, not only in treating the controller as a mere ministerial officer, but also in treating his act in rejecting the warrants as unsound and improper.
The warrants were drawn for the pay of Keppelman as clerk of the select council; but whether he was so entitled as such clerk, was as yet in abeyance and undetermined.
, Though his title to that office had been adjudged valid by the court below, yet, as the case was still pending in the Supreme Court, it was altogether proper for the controller to refuse the claim of Keppelman until the superior court had rendered its judgment. The judgment is reversed.