Commonwealth ex rel. Hensel v. Severn

Decision Date22 October 1894
Docket Number31
Citation30 A. 395,164 Pa. 462
PartiesCommonwealth ex rel. Attorney General v. B. R. Severn, Appellant
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Argued: October 10, 1894

Appeal, No. 31, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Schuykill Co., Sept. T., 1894, No. 147, on writ of quo warranto. Affirmed.

Quo warranto. Before PERSHING, P.J.

From the record it appeared that B. R. Severn was elected county controller of Schuylkill county on Nov. 7, 1893, for a term of three years, from Jan. 1, 1894, by virtue of the act of June 8, 1893, P.L. 393, entitled "An act creating the office of county controller in counties containing 150,000 inhabitants and over, and prescribing his duties."

On the ground that this act was unconstitutional the clerk of the county commissioners of Schuylkill county petitioned the attorney general to suggest a writ of quo warranto to oust the controller. The writ was suggested and granted. The controller filed his answer. A demurrer was filed and defendant filed a joinder. The case was argued on demurrer and joinder. The court entered judgment of ouster against defendant.

Error assigned was entry of judgment of ouster.

Judgment affirmed.

W. D. Seltzer, W. J. Whitehouse with him, for appellant, cited: R.R. v. Phila., 124 Pa. 219; Phila. v. R.R., 142 Pa. 484; Com. v. Green, 58 Pa. 234; Com. v. Kunzmann, 41 Pa. 429; Cooley's Const. Lim. 178; Craig v. Church, 88 Pa. 46; Boro. v. McGee, 3 W.N. 33; Dorsey's Ap., 72 Pa. 192; Bechert v. Allegheny, 85 Pa. 191; Dewhurst v. Allegheny, 95 Pa. 437; Smith v. McCarty, 56 Pa. 539; Allegheny Co. Home's case, 77 Pa. 77; Lea v. Bumm, 83 Pa. 237; Wynkoop v. Cooch, 89 Pa. 450.

J. O. Ulrich, for appellee, not heard, filed no brief.




This case is ruled against the defendant by Com. ex rel. v. Samuels et al., in which an opinion by our Brother MITCHELL was filed on July 12th, last, holding that, by reason of its defective title, the act of June 8, 1893, P.L. 393, under which defendant in this case claims title, was unconstitutional.

While the defendant, by taking this appeal, has availed himself of a re-argument of the constitutional question disposed of in the case above cited, we are very far from seeing our way clear to do anything else than adhere to the principle announced in that case. It therefore follows that there is no error in the judgment of the court below.

Judgment affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Henderson
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1895
    ...v. Com., 120 Pa. 395; Com. v. Frantz, 135 Pa. 389; Philadelphia v. Ridge Ave. Ry., 142 Pa. 484; Com. v. Samuels, 163 Pa. 283; Com. v. Severn, 164 Pa. 462. STERRETT, C.J., GREEN, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM, MITCHELL, DEAN and FELL, JJ. OPINION MR. STERRETT, CHIEF JUSTICE: Analysis of the act of Marc......
  • State v. Emerson
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • August 9, 1939
    ... ... of the questions here involved were discussed in State ex ... rel. Green v. Collison, 9 W. W. Harr. (39 ... Del. ) 245, 197 A. 836, and ... 181; Com. v. Samuels, 163 Pa ... 283, 29 A. 909; Com. v. Severn, 164 Pa. 462, 30 A ... 395; Ward Cattle & Pasture Co. v. Carpenter, ... ...
  • Carter v. Producers & Refiners Oil Co., Ltd.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1894
    ... ... Ry., 40 N.H ... 548; Spelling, Ext. Rel. §§ 590, 760; Ry. v ... Rushout, 10 E.L. & E. Rep. 72; Ryan v. Ry., 12 ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT