Commonwealth v. Douglass
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN this case upon the motion of Hopkinson, founded upon the following affidavits, a rule was granted upon the defendants to shew cause why an information in the nature o a quo warranto should not be filed against them to inquire by what authority they exercised the office of inspectors of the prison of the city and county of Philadelphia.
Read the full summary
IN this case upon the motion of Hopkinson, founded upon the following affidavits, a rule was granted upon the defendants to shew cause why an information in the nature o a quo warranto should not be filed against them to inquire by what authority they exercised the office of inspectors of the prison of the city and county of Philadelphia. "John Clement Stocker, of the city of Philadelphia, Esq. being "duly sworn, doth depose and say, that being one of the alder"men of the eaid city, on the 5th day of November last, (1803 "he called on Matthew Lawler Esq. mayor of the said city and inquired of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Ye ates J.(a) The words of the 17th sec. of the act of 23d Sept. 1791 are that “ it shall and may be lawful for the mayor and “ two aldermen of the city of Philadelphia and two justices of il the peace for the county of Philadelphia to appoint inspectors “ of the prison of the city and county of Philadelphia on the 1st u Mondays of May and November in every year, and on any “ other days when vacancies shall happen in the said office by a death resignation or otherwise.” It appears to a majority of the court, that the legislature intended to vest in the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- People v. RichardsonNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- People Ex Rel. Bagshaw v. ThompsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- United States ex rel. Noyes v. HatchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1842
- Koslow v. STATE ETHICS COMM.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Raynovich v. RomanusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.