Commonwealth v. Larkin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 108, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1906, No. 162, refusing mandamus in case of Commonwealth, ex rel. Welsbach Street Lighting Company of America v. John B. Larkin, Controller of the City of Pittsburg. Petition for mandamus. Before MacFarlane, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was in refusing mandamus.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stewart,
The powers and duties of controllers in cities of the first and second class, with respect to the certifying of municipal contracts, are practically identical. Therefore what was said by this court in the ease of Com. ex rel. Century Company v. Philadelphia, 176 Pa. 588, applies here. While it is there said that the duties of a controller are partly discretionary, there is nothing in the opinion warranting an inference that his discretion extends to the certifying of municipal contracts on their face regular and legal. On the contrary, it is there expressly held,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mazet v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Commonwealth ex rel. Century Co. v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by16 opinions
- Commonwealth v. TiceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Shoemaker v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Narcise v. Eastern State Pen.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Thayer v. McCaslin, ControllerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Commonwealth of Pa. Ex Rel. v. IrvinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.