Commonwealth v. Cain
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Quo Warranto. THIS cause came before the Court on a motion for a rule on the defendants, to shew cause why an information in natur£ a Warranto should not be filed against them for usurping the office of vestrymen of “ St. Thomas’s African Episcopal Church of PhiladelphiaBy agreement of parties, the controversy was reduced to a single question, whether a bye-law made on the 3d April, 1819, was valid, by which it was enacted, that no member of this church whose pew rent was in…
Read the full summary
Quo Warranto. THIS cause came before the Court on a motion for a rule on the defendants, to shew cause why an information in natur£ a Warranto should not be filed against them for usurping the office of vestrymen of “ St. Thomas’s African Episcopal Church of PhiladelphiaBy agreement of parties, the controversy was reduced to a single question, whether a bye-law made on the 3d April, 1819, was valid, by which it was enacted, that no member of this church whose pew rent was in arrear for a longer time than two years should be entitled to vote at any election of officers of the said church. ' By…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Tilghman C. J.
The third rule made on the 12th July^ *5131784, is to be considered as part of the act of incorporation, just as if it had been actually inserted in it; and if the bylaw in question can, by fair agreement, be made out to be in contradiction-to it, its validity cannot be supported.— There is no express contradiction betweeu the rule and the by-law. The rule declares, that no person shall vote, who has not been a member of the church twelve months preceding the election — the by-law does not say that he shall — but only, that although he…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth ex rel. Clements v. ArrisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1827
- Commonwealth v. MurraySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824