
    Mohney v. Redbank Township School District.
    A writ of error to an appeal from a township auditor’s report, on the account of a treasurer of a school district, does not lie.
    Oct. 3, 1888.
    Error, No. 56, Oct. T., 1888, to C. P. Clarion Co., to review a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on a case-stated wherein the Redbank Township School District was plaintiff, and A. T. Mohney was defendant, at Aug. T., 1887, No. 203. Green, J., absent.
    The case stated was as follows :
    “ W. A. Warnick was collector and treasurer of the school district of Redbank township, for the year ending the first Monday of June, 1886, and, on or about the expiration of his said term, his accounts as such treasurer were settled by the township auditors, in which settlement exonerations to amount of $123.04 were allowed, him, and a balance of $292.09 was found against him, for money due by him to said district, which settlement was not appealed from. On June 6, 1887, the township auditors proceeded to audit the accounts of A. T. Mohney, treasurer of said school district for the year ending on the first Monday of June, 1887. Said Mohney was present as treasurer, and took part in said settlement. A copy of said settlement, as made by and with said auditors, is hereto attached and made a part of this case-stated.
    “ Among the debit items charged against said Mohney, as treasurer, in said settlement, were these two items, viz :
    Amount in hands of Warnick, former collector................$292 09
    Amount of interest due from Warnick........................... n 79
    “ Among the items on the credit side of the account allowed to said Mohney, where these two items, viz :
    By amount still in hands of Warnick........................,...$ 63 92
    By amount exonerations to Warnick............................. 37 99
    “ On striking a balance between the debit and credit sides of the account, the sum of $3.92 was reported due the district by said Mohney.
    “ David McKinley; the appellant, was one of the auditors making said settlement and he objected to the allowance c5f said item of $37.99 of exonerations of Warnick, and then gave notice verbally that if said exonerations were allowed by the other auditors he would appeal from their settlement. The said settlement was signed by David Hartzell and Isaac Postléwait, two of the auditors present. On June 16, 1887, the said David McKinley, a taxpayer in said district, filed in this court an appeal from said last mentioned auditors’ settlement, said appeal being in due form and accompanied by a recognizance conditioned for the payment of costs as the law in such cases requires. A copy of said appeal of said David McKinley, is hereto attached and made part of this case-stated. Said Mohney took no appeal from said settlement. The appellant, on behalf of said district, objects to said credit item of $37.99 for exonerations illegally allowed as he claims, and the appellee, A. T. Mohney, contends that if the form of the said settlement was erroneous or incorrect, that the appeal opened up the said settlement as to him, and that the items of $292.09 and $11.79 were erroneously charged to him in said settlement, and that he is entitled to have same corrected on this appeal and ought not to be charged with a larger or greater sum than $201.97. It being hereby admitted that this is the amount he actually received from said former treasurer, W. A. Warnick. If the court should be of opinion that said credit item of $37.99 was erroneously allowed, and that said appeal by David McKinley did not open up the said settlement for the correction of alleged errors on the debit side of the said account, then judgment to be entered for the plaintiff for the sum of $37-99 with costs. But if the court should be of opinion that said appeal opens up the whole case, and enables said Mohney to allege errors on the debit side of said account, thenjudgmenttobe entered herein for the appellee, A. T. Mohney, and the appellant, David McKinley, to pay the costs of this case. Either party to have the right to sue out a writ of error on the judgment given herein.”
    Oct 29, 1888.
    The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $37.99 with costs, and the defendant took this writ.
    
      The assignment of error specified that the court below erred in deciding “ that the credit item of $37.99, mentioned in the case stated, was erroneously allowed, and that the appeal by David McKinley did not open the auditors’ settlement for the correction of alleged errors on the debit side of the account,” and in entering judgment against defendant in favor of plaintiff for $37.99 with costs.
    /. E. Wood, with him W. L. Corbett, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      B. J. Reid & Sons, for the defendant in error.
   Per Curiam,

As a writ of error does not lie to the court below on an appeal from an auditor’s report, we order the writ to be quashed.  