Hutchinson v. Goshorn

• Decision Date: 08 January 1917
• Docket Number: 175
• Citation: 256 Pa. 69,100 A. 586
• Parties: Hutchinson, Appellant, v. Goshorn
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

100 A. 586

256 Pa. 69

Hutchinson, Appellant, v. Goshorn

No. 175

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 8, 1917

Argued October 20, 1916

Appeal, No. 175, Oct. T., 1916, by plaintiff, from decree of C.P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1916, No. 981, dissolving preliminary injunction in case of Harry Hutchinson, on his own behalf and in behalf of all interested persons who may desire to become parties plaintiff v. L. R. Goshorn, David Lawrence, J. Scott Morgan and W. L. McCullagh. Appeal dismissed.

Bill in equity for an injunction.

The facts appear in the following opinion by SWEARINGEN, J.:

Harry Hutchinson filed this bill on his own behalf and in behalf of all others who might desire to become parties and contribute to the expenses. The complainant is the chairman of the ward executive committee of the Republican party of the Seventh ward of the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. No other persons have intervened nor asked to be made parties to the proceedings. The defendants constitute the Board of Registration Commissioners of the City of Pittsburgh, duly appointed and qualified under the provisions of the act known as the "Personal Registration Act," approved July 24, 1913, P.L. 977. Upon presentation of the bill, together with injunction affidavits, a preliminary injunction was granted, and Tuesday, August 15, 1916, was fixed as the time for hearing. By agreement of the parties the hearing took place on Monday, August 14, 1916, when the testimony was taken and the arguments were concluded August 15th.

The complainant averred that pursuant to the provisions of said registration act, the ward executive committee of the Republican party for the Seventh ward of the City of Pittsburgh suggested the names of two qualified persons for appointment as registrars for the ensuing year, in each election district of said ward, among whom were the following:

William J. Best, first district, reappointment;

August Trautman, third district, original appointment;

Frank P. Meyer, sixth district, reappointment;

Harry W. Normecutt, eighth district, original appointment;

Henry P. Krebs, ninth district, reappointment;

F. W Schwartz, eleventh district, original appointment;

Frank A. Minnemeyer, eleventh district, reappointment.

He further averred that by letter of August 5, 1916, the Board of Registration Commissioners, the defendants, notified him that the above named parties had failed to meet the approval of the commissioner and advised him that the committee might suggest other persons for the consideration of the board. He then charged that the defendants have no authority to refuse to appoint the above named William J. Best, Frank P. Meyer Henry P. Krebs, and Frank A. Minnemeyer, who were all applicants for reappointment, nor had the board any right or authority to refuse the appointment of August Trautman, Harry W. Normecutt and F. W. Schwartz, who were applicants for original appointment, because it has no discretion under the statute as to the appointment of those persons who have been suggested by the ward executive committee for reappointment and because in so far as it has discretion as to the appointment of persons suggested for original appointment, the board had acted illegally and arbitrarily and contrary to the act. It was further charged that the defendants had refused to make said appointments for the purpose of selecting unlawfully, illegally, etc., other persons as registrars. There was no evidence to sustain this charge.

At the hearing it appeared that the above suggestions were not made by the ward executive committee; they were made by the complainant as chairman after consultation with the chairmen of the respective districts in the ward and by their authority. This appears to have been the custom that has prevailed throughout the wards of the City of Pittsburgh. The custom probably arose under the previous Act of Feb. 17, 1906, P.L. 49, which, however, has been changed by the Act of 1913. We have no disposition to dispose of the case upon this proposition, but we suggest that both the Board of Registration Commissioners and the ward committees note the provisions of this Act of 1913, which declares that the names shall be suggested to the commissioners "by the ward executive committees" and that the petitions shall be signed "by the president and one secretary" of the ward executive committee. This language indicates that the chairman and the secretary are but the agents of the committee and that the suggestion ought to come from the committee itself.

There is grave doubt whether the complainant is a party who has standing to invoke the powers of a court of equity in such a case as this. He is but the chairman of a ward executive committee and as such it is difficult to perceive what "property right" of his may be infringed by any act of the defendants relative to the matter in controversy. Ordinarily the powers of a court of equity can only be invoked where some right in property is imperiled: Bispham's Equity, page 642; Kearns & Smith v. Howley et al., 188 Pa. 116.

Another suggestion is that for the alleged wrongs there are adequate remedies at law, and consequently there is no jurisdiction in equity. It is true that for failure to perform a duty enjoined mandamus will generally lie. It is likewise true that...