DAYSTROM, INC. v. BATT, 390 Pa. 586 (1957)

136 A.2d 116

Daystrom, Incorporated, Appellant, v. Batt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.October 3, 1957.
November 18, 1957.

Commonwealth — Unemployment Compensation Fund — Employers — Rate of contribution — Overpayments — Application for review — Statutory remedy — Exclusiveness — Unemployment Compensation Law.

1. In view of the provision in § 301 (e) (2) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law of December 5, 1936, P. L. (1937), 2897, as amended (which provides “The determination of the department of employer’s rate of contribution shall become conclusive and binding upon the employer, unless within [a specified time] . . . the employer files an application for review”), an employer who has not filed a timely application for review cannot maintain an action in mandamus to obtain the refund of excessive payments into the Unemployment Compensation Fund.

2. Where a remedy or method of procedure is provided by a statute the directions of such statute shall be strictly pursued and such remedy or procedure is exclusive.

Page 587

Mr. Justice MUSMANNO filed a dissenting opinion.

Mr. Justice COHEN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Before JONES, C. J., BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD and JONES, JJ.

Appeal, No. 4, May T., 1958, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, 1956, No. 248 Commonwealth Docket, in case of Daystrom, Incorporated, v. William L. Batt, Jr., Secretary of Labor and Industry, et al. Judgment affirmed.

Same case in court below: 10 Pa. D. C.2d 39.

Mandamus.

Defendants’ preliminary objections sustained and judgment entered dismissing the complaint, opinion by RICHARDS, P. J. Plaintiff appealed.

William H. Wood, with him Leon D. Metzger and Hull, Leiby and Metzger, for appellant.

Morley W. Baker, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellees.

OPINION PER CURIAM, November 18, 1957:

The judgment of the court below sustaining defendants’ preliminary objections is affirmed on the opinion of Judge RICHARDS: 10 Pa. D. C.2d 39.

DISSENTING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO:

The plaintiff in this case, Daystrom, Incorporated, made an overpayment to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Page 588

in the amount of approximately $166,500. I see no reason why it should not be paid back.

There is no business place in the world which honors itself by living up to the Golden Rule, by respecting the fundamental rules of good business practices, and by observing fair business methods, that would not gladly make refund of what it collected through error and to which it is clearly not entitled.

Why should the Golden Rule shine any less brightly in the business house of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?