Schilling ex rel. First National Bank v. Ohio Township

Citations

• 260 Pa. 113
• 103 A. 608
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 477

Syllabus

<p>Municipalities — Townships—Promissory notes — Work done — Defenses — Want of consideration — Township supervisors’ authority to borrow money■ — Sufficiency of revenues — Honest mistake — Meetings — Notice of meetings — Evidence—Charge of court.</p> <p>1. Where in an action on a promissory note made by the supervisors of a township in payment for work done and material furnished, the defense was that the giving of the note was authorized at a meeting of the supervisors not legally called, that the amount was beyond the revenues of the township and no tax levy made to secure its payment, and that the note was without proper consideration, but where it appeared that the meeting of the supervisors had been called by the secretary “for the purpose of executing a note of $2,500” to the contractor who had performed work for the township it was not material that only two of the supervisors of the township attended the meeting, where it appeared that the third member had received a postal card notifying him of the meeting and of the business to be transacted but had mislaid it.</p> <p>2. Where in such case it appeared that the supervisors had levied .a tax of five and one-half mills, and that, upon the happening of an extraordinary flood, whereby roads and bridges were destroyed, an additional levy of four and one-half mills was made before the execution of the note in question, instructions to the jury are proper, to the effect that ,if the township supervisors honestly believed that the revenues so provided were sufficient to pay the note in question, it was not material that it afterwards appeared that they were mistaken in their judgment.</p> <p>3. Where in such case it appeared that contracts had been made by the supervisors for repairs to roads and bridges, and that after certain of the work had been done the contractor was Ordered to cease the work and was given the note in payment for the work which he had done, the trial judge made no error in excluding evidence