Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney-General v. Garrigues

• Decision Date: 01 January 1857
• Citation: 28 Pa. 9
• Parties: Commonwealth ex relatione Attorney-General versus Garrigues.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 9

28 Pa. 9

Commonwealth ex relatione Attorney-General versus Garrigues.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

THIS was a writ of quo warranto, issued out of the Supreme Court, upon the suggestion of Thomas E. Franklin, Esquire, Attorney-General, against William Garrigues, to show by what warrant he claims to have and exercise the office of an alderman in and for the Twenty-fourth Ward of the city of Philadelphia.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

R. N. Waite, for the Commonwealth.

J. B. Townsend, for defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by LEWIS, C. J.

The Act of 2d February, 1854, provides that the returns of all municipal elections (with exceptions not material to the present case) "shall be subject to the inquiry and determination of the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Philadelphia, upon the complaint of fifteen or more of the qualified voters of the proper ward or division, which complaint shall be filed in the said court, within twenty days after such election," &c., and "the said court in judging of such elections shall proceed upon the merits thereof, and determine finally concerning the same, according to the laws of the Commonwealth." If the election of William Garrigues had been contested in the manner thus prescribed, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas would have been final. It would not have been reversed by quo warranto, or by any other collateral proceeding. Even a certiorari would only draw into review in this court the regularity of the proceedings, without reaching the merits of the case as disclosed in the evidence. On the merits the judgment of the Common Pleas, by the terms of the Act of 1854, is final and irreversible. In addition to the provisions of the statute to this effect, the principle of the common law produces the same result. It is the interest of the public that there should be an end to contention. Justice to the parties requires that no one should be twice vexed for the same cause. For these reasons the general rule of the common law has been established, that no judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction can be re-examined in a collateral proceeding. If the election had been contested in the manner prescribed by the statute, the decree of the Common Pleas could not have been re-examined in this form of action. Can the Commonwealth gain any advantage by disregarding the requirements of the statute? The Act of 1806 furnishes an answer to this question. The remedy prescribed by the statute...