Commonwealth v. Commissioners of Philadelphia
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THE first of these cases was a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding the commissioners of Philadelphia county to appoint Anthony Fannen or Samuel Story to the office of collector of taxes of Chesnut ward in the city of Philadelphia. . The last was a rule to show cause why an information in the nature of a writ of quo warranto, should not be filed against Liberty Browne, to inquire by what authority he exercised, or claimed to exercise the said…
Read the full summary
THE first of these cases was a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding the commissioners of Philadelphia county to appoint Anthony Fannen or Samuel Story to the office of collector of taxes of Chesnut ward in the city of Philadelphia. . The last was a rule to show cause why an information in the nature of a writ of quo warranto, should not be filed against Liberty Browne, to inquire by what authority he exercised, or claimed to exercise the said office. As both cases depended upon the construction of the same act of assembly,(a) they were considered by the Court, as…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
At the instance of Samuel Story, a rule was laid on the commissioners of the county of Philadelphia, to show cause, why a mandamus should not issue commanding them to appoint either Anthony Fannen, or the said Samitel Story, collector of the taxes in Chesnut ward, in the city of Philadelphia. Cause has been shown, and the case *383stands as follows : Either on the day of appeal or the day before,, the assessor of Chesnut ward returned to the commissioners the said Fannen and Story, in order that one of them might be appointed collector, in pursuance of an 44 Act to 44 raise and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BurrellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
- Commercial Bank v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1845