
    Sell v. Lehigh County, Appellant.
    
      Public officers — County treasurer — Compensation — Acts of March 16,1867, P. L. 486, and, June 17,1918, P. L. 507.
    
    The let of June 17, 1913, P. L. 507, which declares that certain personal property should thereafter be taxable for county purposes instead of for State purpose, does not increase the compensation of the county treasurer of IAhigh County fixed by the special Act of March 16, 1867, P. L. 485, which provides that: “The treasurer of the County of Lehigh shall be entitled to have and receive (in lieu of the compensation now allowed by law) a stated and fixed salary of $1,000 per annum in addition to the compensation now received by him for the collection of money due and for the use of the Commonwealth.”
    Argued Dec. 4, 1917.
    Appeal, No. 122, Oct. T., 1917, bj defendant, from judgment of O. P. Lehigh Co., Jan. T., 1917, No. 72, for plaintiff, on case stated in suit of D. R. Sell v. Lehigh County.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
    Reversed.
    Case stated to determine amount of county treasurer’s compensation.
    Case turned on whether under the Act of March 16, 1867, P. L. 485, special to Lehigh County, fixing the salary of the county treasurer of Lehigh County, the treasurer is entitled to additional compensation on the moneys collected by him under the Act of June 17,1913, as taxes on personal property and disbursed by him for county purposes.
    
      Error assigned was in entering judgment for plaintiff.
    
      Francis J. Gildner, County Solicitor, for appellant,
    cited: Kittanning Borough v. Mast, 15 Pa. Superior Ct. 51; Lehigh County v. Semmel, 124 Pa. 358.
    
      George M. Lutz, for appellee,
    cited: Com. v. Philadelphia County, 157 Pa. 531; Com. v. Philadelphia City, 157 Pa. 550; Philadelphia v. Moore, 208 Pa. 327; Com. v. Mann, 168 Pa. 290.
    July 10, 1918:
   Opinion by

Head, J.,

The special Act of March 16, 1867, P. L. 485, is still in force in the County of Lehigh. It provides that from and after January 1, 1868, “The treasurer of the County of Lehigh shall be entitled to have and receive (in lieu of the compensation now allowed by law) a stated and fixed salary of fl,000 per annum in addition to the compensation now received by him for the collection of moneys due to and for the use of the Commonwealth.”

It appears to us to be clear that the purpose of the passage of this act was to fix at a definite sum the compensation which the County of Lehigh should pay to its officer for the services he would render to the county by virtue of his office. At the time that act was passed the Commonwealth assessed, for its own use, taxes on certain kinds of personal property. It chose to select, as the channels through which those taxes would flow into the State treasury, certain county officers and agreed to pay to them compensation for the services they rendered to the State. The fact that the Commonwealth saw fit to pay to a county treasurer a certain percentage on the sums received and disbursed by him for the use of the State in no way changed the liability of the county to pay him the fixed sum provided for in the statute. As a. consequence, when the legislature by the Act of June 17, 1913, P. L. 507, declared that certain personal property should thereafter be taxable for county purposes instead of for State purposes, such declaration could in iso way increase the salary of the county treasurer of Lehigh County, although it may have added to the bulk of the transactions performed by him as such treasurer.

We are of opinion the County of Lehigh is liable to pay to its treasurer no more than the salary fixed by the Act of 1867 already referred to. The judgment is therefore reversed and the record remitted to the court below with direction to enter judgment in favor of the defendant on the case stated.  