Muncy Borough School District v. Commonwealth ex rel. Witter
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county: Of May Term 1877, No. 45. This was a petition for a mandamus by A. C. Witter, H. F. Witter, his wife, by the said A. C. Witter, and George L. Peck, which, in substance, set forth, that on the 5th of April 1870 an Act of Assembly (Pamph. L. 880) was approve’d, authorizing the directors of Muncy borough school district to borrow money, issue bonds and to sell real estate, and that on the 1st of March 1873 (Pamph.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county: Of May Term 1877, No. 45. This was a petition for a mandamus by A. C. Witter, H. F. Witter, his wife, by the said A. C. Witter, and George L. Peck, which, in substance, set forth, that on the 5th of April 1870 an Act of Assembly (Pamph. L. 880) was approve’d, authorizing the directors of Muncy borough school district to borrow money, issue bonds and to sell real estate, and that on the 1st of March 1873 (Pamph. L. 349) a supplement to said act was approved, by which said directors were authorized to borrow money and to issue bonds…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Paxson
The plaintiffs having demurred to the return made by the defendants to the writ of alternative mandamus we must regard all the facts properly pleaded in said return as admitted. It appears that at a special meeting of the board of directors of the school district of the borough of Muncy, held at about six o’clock on the afternoon of Saturday, September 13th 1873, the draft of Pomeroy Bros., of Troy, Pa., dated September 10th 1873, on Messrs. Jay Cooke & Co., of Philadelphia, for $1100 was presented. The draft was to the order of “ School Board, Muncy, Pa.,” and it was represented to the board…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Schofield v. BayardNew York Supreme Court · 1830