Skip to main content
· 1/7/1918

Germantown Trust Co. v. Powell

Citations

  • 260 Pa. 181
  • 103 A. 596
  • 1918 Pa. LEXIS 490

Syllabus

<p>Equity — Equity practice — Injunction — Auditor general — Statutes — Corporations, etc., with money on deposit for long time — Es-cheat- — Requirement to file reports — Bill to enjoin — Premature issues — Act of June 7, 1915, P. L. 878 — Supreme Court practice.</p> <p>1. The fact that the constant furnishing of detailed reports to the Federal and several state governments has become a very considerable financial and clerical burden to corporations, is alone a sufficient consideration to give these concerns and others so affected the right to question at once the validity of all acts of assembly placing such obligations upon them. While, in the exercise of its right of visitation, the state has power to compel corporations to render it reports, it cannot do this for the avowed purpose of enabling one of its officials to do something which the Constitution forbids, or even to accomplish a proper end in a manner prohibited by the organic law.</p> <p>2. The Act of June 7,1915, P. L. 878, requires reports to be made to the auditor general from persons and corporations having money on deposit or property in their possession for a long period of time belonging to other persons, and also requires reports from every corporation of dividends or profits declared but not paid. Certain corporations, from whom reports were demanded by the auditor general, filed bills in equity praying that the act be declared invalid as violating several mandates of both the Federal and State Constitutions. Upon demurrer the bills were dismissed on the ground that the issues were raised prematurely, and that the court would not enjoin preliminary steps taken for the purpose of discovering the whereabouts of property so circumstanced as reasonably to raise the presumption that it was liable to escheat. Upon appeal, held that the bills were improperly dismissed and the decrees were reversed and the bills reinstated that the issues raised might be determined by the court below.</p> <p>3. The Supr

Judges: Brown, Frazer, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart, Walling

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.