Commonwealth v. Raudenbush

• Decision Date: 12 April 1915
• Docket Number: 325
• Citation: 94 A. 555,249 Pa. 86
• Parties: Commonwealth, Appellant, v. Raudenbush
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

94 A. 555

249 Pa. 86

Commonwealth, Appellant, v. Raudenbush

No. 325

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 12, 1915

Argued February 16, 1915

Appeal, No. 325, Jan. T., 1914, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Schuylkill Co., March T., 1914, No. 187, of ouster in quo warranto proceedings, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ex rel., C. A. Whitehouse, District Attorney of Schuylkill County, v. T. W. Raudenbush. Reversed.

Suggestion for writ of quo warranto to determine defendant's right to hold office as water superintendent of a borough.

Demurrer to answer to suggestion. Before BECHTEL, P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

The court overruled the demurrer. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was in overruling the demurrer.

The judgment is reversed, and judgment is now entered in favor of the Commonwealth upon the demurrer; and it is further ordered and adjudged that the defendant, T. W. Raudenbush, be ousted and altogether excluded from his office as water superintendent of the Borough of Ashland, Schuylkill County and that he pay the costs of this proceeding.

C. E Berger, for appellant.

William C. Devitt, for appellee.

Before BROWN, C.J., MESTREZAT, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE MESTREZAT:

This is a suggestion for a writ of quo warranto to determine the right of T. W. Raudenbush to hold the office of water superintendent of the Borough of Ashland, Schuylkill County. The facts are stated in the opinion filed herewith in Commonwealth v. Krapf, 249 Pa. 81, except that Raudenbush, the defendant, resigned his position as water superintendent on February 4, 1914, and was immediately reelected to the same position by council. The writ in this case was issued two days prior to the resignation and the reelection of Raudenbush, and this proceeding was then pending for the ousting of Raudenbush from the position of water superintendent.

We are of opinion that Raudenbush could not vote for the acceptance of his own resignation which, therefore, never became effective. In 28 Cyc. 337, citing numerous authorities to sustain the text, it is said: There is a general rule of law that no member of a governing body shall vote on any question involving his own character or conduct, his right as a member, or his pecuniary interest, if that be immediate particular, and distinct from the public interest." A member of a municipal council is disqualified from voting in proceedings involving his personal or pecuniary interest: 20 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, (2d Ed.), 1214. We have been referred to no authority and have found none which permits a member of council to vote for his own resignation. It is against public policy for a representative of a municipality to vote in its legislative body on any matter which affects him individually. Raudenbush's resignation, therefore, never became effective, and he is still a member de jure of the council so far as his attempted resignation deprives him of the right to exercise the functions of the office. This was the situation not only when he was elected water superintendent on January 5, 1914, but when he was reelected superintendent after his resignation of the position on February 4, 1914. The defendant manifestly doubted the legality of his first election as water superintendent...