Arthur v. Philadelphia
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 128, Jan. T., 1922, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1920, No. 9728, dismissing petition for mandamus, in case of John E. Arthur v. City of Philadelphia, J. Hampton Moore, Mayor, and Frank H. Caven, Director of Public Works. Petition for mandamus. Before Rogers, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Petition dismissed: 30 Pa. Dist. R. 676. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was order, quoting it.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Frazer,
Plaintiff was appointed chief of the bureau of city property by the director of public works in the City of Philadelphia. On May 12,1920, he received notice from the director that on May 19th he would be dismissed for reasons set forth in the notice. Plaintiff replied denying the charges and after his dismissal he filed a petition for mandamus to compel reinstatement in office. The court below held that of the thirteen reasons given for dismissal but one was supported by the evidence, dismissing the petition, however, on the ground that plaintiff was an appointed…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Houseman v. Commonwealth ex rel. TenerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Truitt v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Commonwealth v. BlackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Thomas v. ConnellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Brower v. KantnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Milford Township Supervisors' RemovalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Finley v. McNairSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- O'Gorman AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Junge's Appeal. (No. 2.)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Commonwealth v. GallagherSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.