In re Cahill, Slevin & McVay
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: 25 Miscellaneous Docket No. 1. . This was a rule granted upon petition of John Slevin, John H. Cahill and Mathew McVay, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue against Hou.
Read the full summary
In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: 25 Miscellaneous Docket No. 1. . This was a rule granted upon petition of John Slevin, John H. Cahill and Mathew McVay, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue against Hou. William S. Peirce, Hon. D. Newlin Fell and Hon. Michael Arnold, judges of the Courts of Common Pleas for the city and county of Philadelphia, the court assigned for the purpose of opening, computing and certifying the returns of the election held in the city of Philadelphia, on Tuesday, February 17th, 1885, to compel them to issue a certificate of election to tbe twenty-six…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Mercur
This application is against those judges of the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Philadelphia, who were assigned to open, compute, and certify the returns of the election hold therein on the 17th day of February, 1885. The present purpose is to require them to count the votes cast at that election for the petitioners; but the ultimate object is to compel an increase of the number of magistrates and of magistrate’s courts, designated by the Act of the Legislature.
The claim of the petitioners is based on Art. V., sect. 12 of the Constitution. It declares, “ in Philadelphia there shall be…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Rutenberg v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Lewis v. Lackawanna CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Plaugher v. American Viscose Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Commonwealth v. BrickerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Commonwealth ex rel. Connor v. MeehanPhiladelphia County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1949
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.