In re Krickbaum's Contested Election

• Citation: 221 Pa. 521,70 A. 852
• Parties: In re KRICKBAUM'S CONTESTED ELECTION.
• Decision Date: 25 May 1908
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

70 A. 852
221 Pa. 521

In re KRICKBAUM'S CONTESTED ELECTION.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 25, 1908.

70 A. 853

Appeal from Court of Quarter Sessions, Columbia County.

In the matter of the election contest of William Krickbaum as associate judge of Columbia County. From an order declaring contestant elected, William Krickbaum appeals. Reversed.

Argued before MITCHELL, C. J., and FELL, MESTREZAT, POTTER, and STEWART, JJ.

Fred Ikeler and James Gay Gordon, for appellant.

Geo. S. Graham and Clyde Chas. Yetter, for appellee.

POTTER, J. In the opinion of this court in Independence Party Nomination, 208 Pa. 108, 57 Atl. 344, Chief Justice Mitchell points out that proceedings by certiorari on a summary petition occupy a middle ground between those in common-law actions and equity suits, and that the appellate court, in the exercise of supervisory powers in such cases, will not stop with a mere inspection of the formal proceedings, but will examine the opinion of the court below so far as may be necesary to ascertain the basis of its action. This statesment of the principles and practice by which this court is governed in such cases was again cited and approved in Chester County Republican Nominations, 213 Pa. 64, 62 Atl. 258, and it was further pointed out that "where the facts appear upon the record this court will examine whether the judgment is correct upon such facts, and may for that purpose consider the opinion of the court as part of the record." See, also, Mulholland's Case, 217 Pa. 631, 66 Atl. 1105. The opinion of this court in Von Moss' Election, 210 Pa. 453, 68 Atl. 1019, is also consistent with this rule, and in that case we took into consideration the facts presented, as found in the opinion of the court below. In the present case the facts are not disputed. They are found and presented by the trial judge as the basis of his action, and it becomes our duty to examine the judgment to see if it is correct upon such facts, and for that purpose, we take them as set forth in the opinion of the trial judge as follows:

"The petition of George M. Hughes was filed in this case on the 4th day of December, 1907, to contest the election of William Krickbaum to the office of associate judge for the county of Columbia. At the general election held on the 5th day of November, 1907, in said county, an associate judge was to be elected. On the canvass of the returns by the judges, it appears that William Krickbaum received 3,043 votes and that George M. Hughes received 3,012 votes. The petition alleged that 107 votes were cast for William Krickbaum, and that 39 votes were cast for George M. Hughes in Mifflin township at said election, and that all the votes cast at said election in Mifflin township were illegal and void, and should not be counted for either Krickbaum or Hughes in computing the election returns of Columbia county; that if the votes cast at said election in Mifflin township were not counted George M. Hughes would have received 2,973 votes, and that William Krickbaum would have received 2,936 votes; that George M. Hughes received a majority of the legal votes cast for associate judge in Columbia county at the election held November 5, 1907. The objection to the vote counted for Mifflin township is that the legally elected judge of election was not permitted to take part in holding the election and that a usurper acted as judge in holding said election."

The...