Commonwealth v. Durkin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 74, Jan. T., 1914, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Jan. T., 1914, No. 519, of ouster in quo warranto proceedings in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Ex. Relatione, John Riley, Burgess of the Borough of Sugar Notch, v. Thomas Durkin, Isaac Gallagher, Thomas Lenahan and Andrew Matthews. Quo warranto to oust defendants from office of borough councilman.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 74, Jan. T., 1914, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Jan. T., 1914, No. 519, of ouster in quo warranto proceedings in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Ex. Relatione, John Riley, Burgess of the Borough of Sugar Notch, v. Thomas Durkin, Isaac Gallagher, Thomas Lenahan and Andrew Matthews. Quo warranto to oust defendants from office of borough councilman. Before Woodward, J. At the municipal election of 1913, in the Borough of Sugar Notch, there were six councilmen to be elected; two for a term of two years, to fill unexpired terms, and four for the term of four…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
At the election held in the Borough of Sugar Notch on November 4, 1913, two of the councilmen to be elected were to fill unexpired terms caused by death. By section 4 of the Act of May 22,1895, P. L. 109, it was necessary for the qualified electors to designate on their ballots that they voted for two persons named thereon to fill unexpired terms. This was not done, and it was impossible to tell from the ballots cast who of the six receiving the majority of the votes cast had been elected for the unexpired terms. These were to be filled in accordance with the provisions of the Act…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth, ex rel. Gast v. PfrommSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Commonwealth v. ClarkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915