Commonwealth ex rel. Margiotti v. Union Traction Co. of Philadelphia
Decision Date | 08 October 1937 |
Docket Number | 1 |
Citation | 194 A. 661,327 Pa. 497 |
Parties | Commonwealth ex rel. Margiotti, Appellant, v. Union Traction Company of Philadelphia et al |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued June 25, 1937
Appeal, No. 1, May T., 1938, from order of C.P. Dauphin Co No. 154, Commonwealth Docket, 1936, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Charles J. Margiotti, Attorney General, v. Union Traction Company of Philadelphia et al. Order appealed from is affirmed.
Proceeding upon writ of quo warranto issued at the relation of and on a suggestion filed by the Attorney General.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Motions to quash sustained and writ of quo warranto quashed, opinion by FOX, J. Commonwealth appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was judgment quashing writ of quo warranto.
The order appealed from is affirmed, costs to be paid by appellant.
Charles J. Margiotti, Attorney General, with him Edward Friedman and Harry Polikoff, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellant.
Geo. Ross Hull, with him Arthur H. Hull, of Snyder, Hull, Hull & Leiby, and Maurice Bower Saul, William E. Mikell, Jr., Gilfillan, Gilpin & Brehman and John J. Sullivan, for appellees.
Spencer G. Nauman, of Nauman, Smith & Hurlock, John Russell, Jr., and Wm. Clarke Mason, for appellees.
W. W. Montgomery, Jr., Sterling G. McNees and Ulric J. Mengert, for appellees.
Before KEPHART, C.J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
This appeal is from an order quashing a writ of quo warranto directed to forty-three respondent corporations and intended to procure forfeiture of their charters for alleged misuser and nonuser of secondary franchises to hold and operate street railways in Philadelphia. The writ was issued at the relation of and on a Suggestion filed by the attorney general. The charge is that by lease and stock ownership respondents unlawfully conspired to avoid performing corporate duties, with resulting damage to the public. The extent of the conspiracy, in point of time, and its character, as respects overt acts, may be understood by keeping in mind that many of the respondents were incorporated by special acts of assembly prior [1] to the adoption of the Constitution of 1873 and many of them under general acts passed since [2]; that many leases, [3] contracts, enabling acts and city ordinances passed long ago are involved; that the last lease made by any respondent was made in 1902 by Union Traction Company to Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company (not a party to this suit). It also appears that since then the lessee has been operating street railways in Philadelphia under that lease, and under additional leases and contracts of the same character as some of those complained of.
Respondents moved to quash the writ, assigning many reasons which the learned court below reduced to twelve. [4] We need not consider whether all are valid; as the Suggestion for the writ shows on its face that the Commonwealth is estopped from claiming the forfeiture on the case presented, the Suggestion is defective in substance. It is therefore unnecessary to state in detail the grounds for the proceeding set forth in the Suggestion. Assuming that some defects might be cured by amendment, there is no escape from the conclusion that the record shows the Commonwealth is estopped from forfeiting the charters.
1. The attorney general insists that if the Commonwealth, at his relation, files a suggestion for a writ of quo warranto the writ must be granted; that the Commonwealth's right to the writ and to a trial is absolute as the exercise of the sovereign's prerogative; that the court has no discretion about it, even though discretion may be exercised to the extent of refusing or quashing a writ sought in the name of the Commonwealth at the instance of a private relator; that a motion to quash will not lie; that respondents have no alternative but to demur, answer or plead.
The contention must be rejected. Against it are the express terms of the Act of June 14, 1836, P.L. 621, 12 PS section 2021 et seq., as well as prior and subsequent decisions dealing with this subject. The jurisdiction in quo warranto, for the first time vested in the common pleas by the Act of 1836, is an adaptation of provisions of the statute of 9th Anne (1710) reprinted in Roberts' Digest, page 384, which, as a result of the construction put upon our Act of 1722, may be said, in a general way, to have determined the nature of the jurisdiction in quo warranto exercised by this court, [5] as well as the procedure.
Prior to the Act of 1836 vesting concurrent jurisdiction in the common pleas in certain cases in quo warranto, this court had exclusive jurisdiction. Section 1, vesting jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, was declaratory of the existing law: Murphy v. Farmers' Bank of Schuylkill County, 20 Pa. 415. Section 2 provides:
Section 3 provides, "Whenever the Attorney General shall have reason to believe that any association as aforesaid, have acted as a corporation, or exercised any of the franchises or privileges thereof, without lawful authority, or that any corporation has forfeited its corporate rights, privileges, or franchises, as aforesaid, or exercised any power, privilege, or franchise, not granted or appertaining to such corporation, it shall be his duty to file, or cause to be filed, a suggestion as aforesaid, and to proceed thereon for the determination of the matter."
The words of the Act are that the writ "may also be issued" by the common pleas. The cases hold that "may" is used in its permissive and not in its mandatory sense, and that whether the writ shall issue, or, having issued, shall be tried, rests in the discretion of the court. To accept the attorney general's argument that a motion to quash will not be entertained and that respondents must demur, answer or plead, even though the Suggestion shows that the Commonwealth is not entitled to assert the forfeiture, would require a reversal of the procedure long established and followed and would place a power in the attorney general hitherto withheld from that officer. To show that he is in error in contending that the cases support his view, and that, on the contrary, they support respondents' position, we shall refer to a number of them at the risk of unduly extending this opinion.
In Commonwealth v. Jones, 12 Pa. 365 (1850), in quashing a writ, GIBSON, C.J., said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
PENNSYLVANIA W. & P. CO. v. CONSOLIDATED GAS EL & P. CO.
...Homer City Borough, 242 Pa. 597, 89 A. 681, Valley Rwys. v. City of Harrisburg, 280 Pa. 385, 124 A. 644; Commonwealth ex rel. Marigiotti v. Union Traction Co., 327 Pa. 497, 194 A. 661. Ultra Vires We come finally to the remaining attack upon the validity of the basic agreement made by Power......
-
Maria T. v. Jeremy S.
...re Application of Dunn , supra note 11.19 See, Kennedy v. Walker, 135 Conn. 262, 63 A.2d 589 (1948) ; Com. ex rel. Margiotti, Aplnt. v. U. Tr. Co. et al., 327 Pa. 497, 194 A. 661 (1937) ; Garrett, supra note 4.20 See In re Application of Tail, Tail v. Olson , supra note 3.21 See Rehbein v. ......
-
Stahl v. First Pa. Banking & Trust Co.
... ... STAHL, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. The FIRST ... Gen., Francis T ... Anderson, Philadelphia, for appellant ... Harry ... E ... 324, 159 A.2d 692; Com. ex ... rel. Storb v. Schroll, 398 Pa. 354, 157 A.2d 179; ... 261, 135 A.2d 383; Com. ex rel. Margiotti ... v. Union Traction Co., 327 Pa. 497, 194 A ... ...
-
Black v. Cum Mings
...title." This language was recently quoted with approval by the supreme court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth ex rel. Margiotti v. Union Traction Co., 327 Pa. 497, 194 A. 661. We have said enough to show that the petitioners are not entitled to a hearing on the merits as of right; and furthe......