Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Keiser

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

Decided February 16, 1940No. 3202Published

1Opinion of the Court

Gordon, Jr., P. J.,

This is a •motion to quash a writ of quo warranto. Of the nine reasons assigned for quashing the writ, the sixth, seventh, and eighth alone are properly cognizable on a motion to quash. These are that we are without jurisdiction to try the title to office of a magistrate, and that the district attorney has no standing to prosecute the writ, which, it is alleged, can only be maintained by the Attorney General. These reasons are without merit: Commonwealth ex rel. v. Taylor et al., 159 Pa. 451; Commonwealth ex rel. v. Cameron, 259 Pa. 209; Commonwealth ex rel. v. Franek, 311…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Schermer v. FranekSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  2. Commonwealth ex rel. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
  3. Commonwealth ex rel. Graham v. CameronSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API