Commonwealth v. Tice

Citations

• 272 Pa. 447
• 116 A. 316

Syllabus

<p>Municipalities — Controller—Refusal to countersign, warrant— Ministerial capacity — Approval of bill for legal services by council —Presumption—Mandamus—Return, sufficiency of averments— Specific remedy at law — Attorney-at-law—Contract to lowest bidder.</p> <p>3. In the absence of fraud, the validity of a claim for legal services approved by the council of a municipality, cannot be questioned by the controller. The presumption is that the mayor and council properly perform their duties.</p> <p>2. It is not necessary for an attorney-at-law to present an itemized bill for legal services rendered to a municipality, and this is specially the ease when they are rendered in the preparation and trial of a single case.</p> <p>3. In doing the routine work of passing accounts, countersigning warrants, etc., the controller acts in a ministerial capacity, and may be compelled to perform such duty by mandamus.</p> <p>4. Where a warrant is presented to a controller thirty days before the return to a writ of mandamus, an averment in the return that there is at the present time no money in the treasury legally applicable for the payment of the same, is insufficient, as there may have been money in the treasury when the warrant was presented.</p> <p>5. In a mandamus proceeding to compel a city controller to countersign a warrant approved by councils, an averment of an adequate and specific remedy at law cannot be sustained.</p> <p>6. A statute requiring municipal contracts, for supplies, etc., to be let to the lowest responsible bidder, is not applicable to an employment for legal services.</p>