Mundy v. Myers
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 267, Jan. T., 1916, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1916, No. 472, awarding mandamus in case of James F. Mundy v. E. L. Myers, Richard A. Ward, J. C. Bell, Dr. Dodson, Percy A. Brown, A. E. Burnaford, Mary L. Trescott, William. Steinhauer and H. W. Saums, School Directors of the City of Wilkes-Barre. Petition for mandamus. The facts appear in Commonwealth v. Gritman, 255 Pa. 277. The relator demurred to the defendant’s answer.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 267, Jan. T., 1916, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1916, No. 472, awarding mandamus in case of James F. Mundy v. E. L. Myers, Richard A. Ward, J. C. Bell, Dr. Dodson, Percy A. Brown, A. E. Burnaford, Mary L. Trescott, William. Steinhauer and H. W. Saums, School Directors of the City of Wilkes-Barre. Petition for mandamus. The facts appear in Commonwealth v. Gritman, 255 Pa. 277. The relator demurred to the defendant’s answer. The court sustained the demurrer and awarded a peremptory mandamus. Defendants appealed. The second question in appellants’…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
When this case was called for argument counsel for appellants stated they would waive the second question in their statement of questions involved. The first question was this day decided adversely to the appellants in Commonwealth, ex rel., Hughes, v. Gritman, et al., 255 Pa. 277, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth, ex rel. Hughes v. GritmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916