Commonwealth ex rel. Lafflin v. Christopher
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
At Nisi Prius. Suggestion for a quo warranto. William Lafflin suggests that Samuel Allen, Esq., was duly elected high sheriff of the city and county of Philadelphia on the second Tuesday of October, 1852, and that said Allen appointed one Jesse Christopher keeper of the debtors’ apartment of the Philadelphia County prison, and that said Christopher gave the proper security and acted as the deputy of-the said Allen until some time in 1855, when he was appointed to the same…
Read the full summary
At Nisi Prius. Suggestion for a quo warranto. William Lafflin suggests that Samuel Allen, Esq., was duly elected high sheriff of the city and county of Philadelphia on the second Tuesday of October, 1852, and that said Allen appointed one Jesse Christopher keeper of the debtors’ apartment of the Philadelphia County prison, and that said Christopher gave the proper security and acted as the deputy of-the said Allen until some time in 1855, when he was appointed to the same office by the inspectors of the Philadelphia County prison, and, under said appointment, now usurps said.office. And…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered
■by Lowrie, J.
-'-This case depends entirely upon the answer to the question, Who has the custody of the debtors’ and witnesses’ committed to the prison in the city of Philadelphia ? I have had considerable difficulty in finding the answer, because it is to be derived from the history of the Philadelphia prison, which is rather involved than expressed in very many acts of *377assembly evidently prepared in Philadelphia where the existing state of things, at different periods, were too well known to •be carefully expressed.
As far back as 1790,2 Smith’s.Laws,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Keim v. SaundersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888