Commonwealth ex rel. Reynolds v. Bussier
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Quo Warranto. THIS was a rule upon Daniel Bussier, to shew cause why an information in nature of a quo warranto should not be filed against him, on the relation of Benjamin Reynolds, calling on him to shew why he exercised the office of inspector of salt provisions for the city, county, and port of Philadelphia. A rule of the same kind had been granted against Benjamin Reynolds at the relation of Daniel Bussier.
Read the full summary
Quo Warranto. THIS was a rule upon Daniel Bussier, to shew cause why an information in nature of a quo warranto should not be filed against him, on the relation of Benjamin Reynolds, calling on him to shew why he exercised the office of inspector of salt provisions for the city, county, and port of Philadelphia. A rule of the same kind had been granted against Benjamin Reynolds at the relation of Daniel Bussier. Both were now argued together, in order to obtain the decision of the Court on the question, which of them was entitled to the office.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Tilghman C. J.
This case comes before us, on a rule to shew cause why an information in nature of a quo warranto, should not be granted against Daniel Bussier, for exercising the office of “ Inspector of salted provisions for the port of PhiladelphiaIt is of importance, because a constitutional point is involved in it, and has been very well argued. The counsel for Benjamin Reynolds the relator, have endeavoured to establish two positions. — 1. That the general assembly and not the Governor, have the right of appointing to this office. — 2. That even if…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SwiftSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Ex parte BouldinSupreme Court of Virginia · 1836