Commonwealth ex rel. O'Hara v. Smith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This was a motion for a rule upon the defendant to show cause why an information in the nature of a quo warranto should not be filed against him, to show by what authority he claimed to exercise and did exercise the duties and rights of clerk of the market erected in the borough of Pittsburg in Second street between Wood and Smithfield streets.
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
Several weighty objections have been urged to the motion made on the part of Mr. O’Hara. The principal are these. That this’Court has no jurisdiction in civil cases, and that they have no power to try an issue in fact in any other place than the county of Philadelphia. (Act 24th February 1806, s. 1. 19.) On the other hand, it is contended, that they have jurisdiction, and also the power to try an issue in fact in this county, and that the act of assembly 24th February 1806, by which these powers are taken away, is contrary to the constitution and void. The original jurisdiction…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Emerick v. HarrisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1808
- Lock v. Estate of LloydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1812
- Robinson v. Edinboro AcademySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
3Cited by16 opinions
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Schnader v. LiverightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Gottschall v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Penn Anthracite Mining Co. v. Anthracite MinersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- State Ex Rel. v. Cobb, County JudgeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- State ex rel. McIlhany v. StewartSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.