Shisler v. Philadelphia
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 336, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia County, March T., 1912, No. 4340, making absolute rule for peremptory mandamus in the case of George W. Shisler v. City of Philadelphia. Petition for rule to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Error assigned was in making absolute rule for peremptory mandamus.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Elkin,
The mandamus issued in this case directed the director of the department of public works and the chief of the board of surveyors to strike from the city plan certain described property of the plaintiff which it was alleged had been plotted for a proposed public park without authority of law. The first question for decision is whether mandamus is a proper remedy in such a case. The writ of mandamus only issues where there is no other specific and legal remedy, or when it is expressly authorized to be issued by statute. It does not lie to compel a public officer to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Fitler, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1890
- Davis v. PattersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
3Cited by7 opinions
- Chelten Trust Co. v. BlankenburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Sibley v. ParkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
- Baldi v. White, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1945
- Goldstein v. Boss, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Beaver County1931
- Haverford School v. Department of Highways, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.