Commonwealth v. Commissioners
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
A rule had been obtained upon the Commissioners of the County of Philadelphia, to show cause why a mandamas should not issue, requiring them to file in their office a certificate of the affirmation made by Montgomery Chambers, as Assessor of Pine Ward, in the city of Philadelpia.
Read the full summary
A rule had been obtained upon the Commissioners of the County of Philadelphia, to show cause why a mandamas should not issue, requiring them to file in their office a certificate of the affirmation made by Montgomery Chambers, as Assessor of Pine Ward, in the city of Philadelpia. This rule was founded upon the following affidavit, made on the 16th of April, 1841. “ Montgomery Chambers, being affirmed according to law, doth depose and say: That on Friday, the nineteenth day of March last, this deponent was duly elected an Assessor of Pine Ward, in the city of Philadelphia, and has been since…
1Opinion of the CourtKennedy, J.
The object of the application for a mandamus in this case, is to compel the commissioners of the county to file in their office a certificate of the affirmation made by the applicant as an assessor duly elected for Pine Ward. The applicant, though duly elected, as it seems, did not produce to the commissioners, as required by the 88th section of the act of the 15th of April, 1834, within twenty days after his election, a copy of the oath or affirmation prescribed by the same act to be taken by him before entering on the duties of his office, so that the commissioners might file it in théir…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Duane v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1874
- Goldstein v. Boss, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Beaver County1931