Cooke v. Roberts
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice. Barnes:
I cannot concur in the majority opinion because .1 am convinced that appellant is entitled to the compensation which he seeks for the services rendered by-him, pending the determination of his appeal to this’ Court from- the judgment of . ouster entered against him in the court of common pleas.
While it is . true that'in a number of our cases it has been stated that “one who is merely a de facto and not a de jure officer cannot claim compensation for official services” (Jones v. Dusman, 246 Pa. 513, 515; Com. ex rel. Shoemaker v. Thomas, 328 Pa. 19,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Suermann v. Hadley, Treas. (White)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Jones v. DusmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- New Brighton & New Castle Railroad v. Pittsburgh, Youngstown & Chicago RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Shoemaker v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- County of Luzerne v. TrimmerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.