Commonwealth v. Smail
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 174, Oct. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Westmoreland Oo., Feb. T., 1911, No. 696, on verdict for defendant in case of Commonwealth, ex rel., W. Irwin Hunter v. James B. Smail. Quo warranto against a justice of the peace. At the trial the court gave binding instructions for defendant, and a verdict was returned for the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 174, Oct. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Westmoreland Oo., Feb. T., 1911, No. 696, on verdict for defendant in case of Commonwealth, ex rel., W. Irwin Hunter v. James B. Smail. Quo warranto against a justice of the peace. At the trial the court gave binding instructions for defendant, and a verdict was returned for the defendant. On a motion by plaintiff for judgment n. o. v. Doty, P. J., filed the following opinion: A clear understanding of the facts will do much to simplify and perhaps solve this case. The relator was duly elected a justice of the peace in the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The opinion of the learned judge of the Common Pleas fully sustains the conclusion reached and on it the judgment is affirmed.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Loewen v. ShapiroSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Ake v. BookhammerCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1922
- State v. HinesWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1925
- Opinion No., Texas Attorney General Reports1978