Opinion · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Bulkley v. Eckert

3 Pa. 368

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Date
1846-07-24
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • early formulation of Pennsylvania rule that property held by a public official in his authorized capacity is not subject to attachment by creditors

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bulkley v. Eckert. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
27 opinions
Sergeant, J.

The person in whose hands this claim was attached, held the moneys in his official capacity as treasurer of the board of school directors, in common with other money, to be applied towards the payment of teachers, according to the rules and regulations of the acts of Assembly for the maintenance of public schools, and not as a private debt due from him to the defendants. His situation does not appear to us to be distinguished from that of a sheriff or prothonotary,. who has money in his hands as a public officer; and it has been determined that these are not liable to the process of attachment. Great public inconvenience would ensue, if money could be thus arrested in the hands of officers, and they be made liable to all the delay, embarrassment, and trouble that would ensue, from being stopped in the routine of their business, compelled to appear in court, employ counsel, and answer interrogatories, as well as take care that the proceedings are regularly carried on, and bail to return duly given. If a precedent of this kind were set, there seems no reason why the state or county treasurers, or other fiscal officers of the Commonwealth, or of municipal bodies, may not be subjected to the levying of attachments, which has never been attempted nor supposed to come within the attachment law. We do not, therefore, think this is such a debt as is contemplated by that law.

The judgment is affirmed.