Commonwealth ex rel. Olwine v. Ford
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This was a quo warranto issued at the instance of Olwine and others, to Athanasius Ford, requiring him to show by what warrant he claimed to exercise the office of commissioner of the District of Penn.
Read the full summary
This was a quo warranto issued at the instance of Olwine and others, to Athanasius Ford, requiring him to show by what warrant he claimed to exercise the office of commissioner of the District of Penn. The relators suggested the acts of Assembly and the supplement by which the district was incorporated, by the title of « commissioners and inhabitants,” &c.; that in pursuance thereof, the said Ford was elected to the said office in 1845, and afterwards assumed the said office; that by the act of Congress of 1789, the offices of marshal and deputy marshal of the Pennsylvania district were…
1Opinion of the Court
Burnside, J.,
(after stating the admission by the answer.) — Is the place of deputy marshal an. office under the Constitution and laws of the United- States ?
It is not an office named in the Constitution; but it is otherwise in the act of Congress of September 24, 1789, to establish the judicial courts of the United States, 1 Story, Laws U. S. 62. Sect. 27 provides “that a marshal shall be appointed in and for'each district, for the term of four years, but shall, be removable from office at pleasure, whose duty it shall be to attend the District and Circuit Courts, when sitting therein, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. ZephonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845
3Cited by2 opinions
- State Ex Rel. McGaughey v. GraystonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1942
- DeTurk v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889