Commonwealth v. Meeser

• Decision Date: 28 February 1863
• Citation: 44 Pa. 341
• Parties: The Commonwealth <I>ex rel.</I> Yard <I>versus</I> Meeser.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 341

44 Pa. 341

The Commonwealth ex rel. Yard versus Meeser.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 28, 1863.

THIS was an application to the Supreme Court by Henry E. Wallace and Edmund S. Yard, for a writ of quo warranto, based upon the following suggestion: —

On hearing, the court awarded the writ, and filed of record the following opinion, which was delivered, February 28th 1863, by LOWRIE, C. J.

It would be a vicious rule of law that would allow all public officers to be annoyed by a quo warranto at the pleasure of every intermeddler or malicious person, and therefore we have hesitated in granting this writ at the suit of a private person. But it is quite apparent that the relator here really represents a large and respectable political party, and is not induced to act by mere personal motives. And we observe that by the Act of 24th April 1854, § 3 (not cited to us in arguing these disputes, and not before noticed by us), any tax-payer may obtain an injunction against any violation of the charter law of the city, and we may take this as a fair analogy for granting this writ, especially as we can always prevent the abuse of it by the exercise of the discretion that belongs to all prerogative writs. Yet it is not without some hesitation that we pass this objection, and come to the essential question of the case.

Is there a reasonable cause shown for disputing the defendant's title to the office of common councilman? We think there is. It is denied that there was any vacancy to be filled for the Fifth Ward at the time of the last election, and this appears to be well founded; for it does not appear that the ward had four thousand taxable inhabitants on the list of taxables of the preceding year, and the sheriff issued no proclamation for an election for the office, and therefore the people did not understand that there was to be an election for it, and only five of them out of nearly four thousand taxables voted.

This ward has already one member, and is not entitled to another unless it had four thousand taxable inhabitants. Here, then, are the regular steps to a valid election: an official list of taxables of the preceding year, showing four thousand taxable inhabitants; a proclamation of the sheriff of a vacancy to be filled, which proclamation is expressly required, and an actual election in pursuance thereof, conducted by the proper officers, and certified as the law directs. If any of these steps are wanting, then the election was irregular, and the defendant's title to the office is at least doubtful. But let us be careful here. This court has no authority to judge whether the election was regularly conducted or not, for that duty is assigned by law to the councils. Our duty must be confined to the decision of the question whether there was an office or vacancy to be filled.

Was there a vacancy in the representation of the Fifth Ward that could lawfully be voted for...