Commonwealth v. Shrontz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 150, Oct. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Washington Co., May T., 1905, No. 117, for defendant on quo warranto in case of Commonwealth ex rel., Owen C. Underwood, District Attorney, v. John F. Shrontz, Jr. Petition for quo warranto. It was claimed in the petition that John F. Shrontz, Jr., was not a qualified elector eligible to a borough office.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 150, Oct. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Washington Co., May T., 1905, No. 117, for defendant on quo warranto in case of Commonwealth ex rel., Owen C. Underwood, District Attorney, v. John F. Shrontz, Jr. Petition for quo warranto. It was claimed in the petition that John F. Shrontz, Jr., was not a qualified elector eligible to a borough office. McIlvaine, P. J., stated the facts to be as follows : John F. Shrontz, Jr., is a native born citizen of the United States, twenty-six years old and has resided with his father continuously in the fifth ward of the borough…
1Opinion of the Court
O pinion by
Mr. Chibe Justice Mitchell,
On the admitted facts the appellee was a qualified elector, entitled to vote at the election, and therefore eligible to office. He was a natural born citizen, upwards of twenty-one years of age, and having regard to the substance of the qualification by payment of a tax, he had complied with that requirement. The appellant argues that there was a defect in the form of the assessment which destroyed its efficacy. The tax was assessed *330against certain property in the name of Shrontz Brothers, but it' was admitted that Shrontz Brothers were the appellee and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Baca v. Village of BelenNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1925
- City of Pocatello v. MurrayIdaho Supreme Court · 1913
- In re Rubinovitz, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1930