Commonwealth v. Rogers
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 11, Oct. T., 1914, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Bradford Co., Sept. Term, 1912, No. 131, refusing petition for mandamus in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Charles M. Culver, District Attorney, v. O. S. Rogers et al., Supervisors of Litchfield Township. Petition for mandamus.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 11, Oct. T., 1914, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Bradford Co., Sept. Term, 1912, No. 131, refusing petition for mandamus in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Charles M. Culver, District Attorney, v. O. S. Rogers et al., Supervisors of Litchfield Township. Petition for mandamus. Little, P. J., specially presiding filed the following opinion: At the instance of Charles M. Culver, Esq., district attorney of Bradford county, writ of mandamus in the alternative form as provided by the act of March 19, 1893, was issued in this court commanding the respondents to perform certain functions…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The petition for mandamus alleged that, at a meeting duly appointed under the special road laws for the selection of reviewers, respondents (who were township supervisors of Litchfield township) "neglected and refused to make choice of a competent and qualified reviewer as provided by existing laws, but the petitioners at said time chose Reuben Horton.” This would seem to present a prima facie case for mandamus to compel the township supervisors to appoint. But it appears, by the answer, that the respondents did select and appoint Clyde Schneider. Pursuant to due notice…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Fitler, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1890
- Commonwealth v. CairnsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Commonwealth v. KesslerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
3Cited by1 opinion
- Homan v. MacKeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928