Commonwealth v. Scott

2 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Scott

    287 Pa. 392 (Pa. 1926)   Cited 4 times

    Appeal from Superior Court. See 88 Pa. Super. 68. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

  2. Brown, for Use v. LeSuer

    27 A.2d 754 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1942)   Cited 2 times

    1. It is well settled that one who demands payment of a tax must show statutory authority for the imposition and collection of the tax: Central Penna. Lumber Co.'s App., 232 Pa. 191, 193, 81 A. 204; Schmuck v. Hartman, 222 Pa. 190, 195, 70 A. 1091; and the principle applies equally well to one who seeks to collect a fee, commission or charge from the taxpayer for his services in effecting the collection of a tax lawfully imposed. Unless statutory authority for the collection of such fee, commission or charge from the taxpayer is shown he cannot be required to pay it: Com. v. Scott, 88 Pa. Super. 68, 71, reversed on another point in 287 Pa. 392, 135 A. 225. A practice, even though long established, of collecting such unauthorized fee, commission or charge will not make it legal: Lawrence County v.Horner, 281 Pa. 336, 342, 126 A. 783. The court below found that "there is no authority in the law for solicitors or tax collectors of school districts to levy such commission for the collection and satisfaction of liened taxes for school districts."