TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Neale v. The Overseers

Neale against The Overseers

Neale v. The Overseers, 5 Watts 538 (1836)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1836
Judges
Huston
Citations
5 Watts 538
Cited by 5
Headnotes
Where a public officer seeks to enforce a legal right by action, he must he able to show that he has duly qualified himself to act, but when a stranger seeks to recover from a- public officer, as such, it is only necessary for him to show that he was an officer defacto.
Summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Armstrong county. . This was an action of assumpsit by Dr Samuel S. Neale against the Overseers of the Poor of Alleghany township, to recover a compensation for medical services rendered to a pauper at the special instance and request of the overseers; and, to maintain the issue on his part, the plaintiff offered in evidence the written request of Daniel Naugle, one of the overseers of the township, to the plaintiff, to attend the patient, who was a pauper. The defendants objected to the evidence, on the ground that Daniel Naugle, although elected an overseer, had never been sworn before undertaking the duties of the office. The court rejected the evidence.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Huston

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Huston, J.

The reason of rejecting the paper offered in evidence, does not appear on the record; but it seems from the argument here, to have been because the overseer had not been sworn before undertaking the office.

Where an officer sues as such, he must in general prove that he is legally entitled, by having qualified himself according to law; but *539 where he has acted as an officer and is sued, or the township, as in this case, is sued, the plaintiff is not bound to do more than show he was elected and acted as such. Riddle v. Bedford, 7 Serg. & Rawle 392 .

What would have been shown, if this paper had been admitted, we know not; it was one link in the chain of evidence proper to be exhibited, and offered in its proper place, and to .reject it was error.

Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1852–1853: 11858–1859: 11866–1867: 11912–1913: 11926–1927: 118522026peak 1852 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Elections of Directors of George Ringler & Co.97 N.E. 593 (N.Y. 1912)
  2. Solar Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission88 Pa. Super. 495 (1926)
  3. Gregg Township v. Jamison55 Pa. 468 (1867)
  4. Mayor of New York v. Flagg6 Abb. Pr. 296 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1858)
  5. Shriver v. Stephens20 Pa. 138 (1852)

Most recent

  1. Solar Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission88 Pa. Super. 495 (1926)
  2. In re the Elections of Directors of George Ringler & Co.97 N.E. 593 (N.Y. 1912)
  3. Gregg Township v. Jamison55 Pa. 468 (1867)
  4. Mayor of New York v. Flagg6 Abb. Pr. 296 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1858)
  5. Shriver v. Stephens20 Pa. 138 (1852)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Riddle v. Cnty. of Bedford, 7 Serg. & Rawle 386 (1821) 23

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list