Madden v. Moore
| Decision Date | 01 July 1910 |
| Docket Number | 336 |
| Citation | 228 Pa. 503,77 A. 821 |
| Parties | Madden, Appellant, v. Moore |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 22, 1910
Appeal, No. 336, Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. No. 5, Phila. Co., June T., 1909, No. 3,053, refusing a writ of mandamus in case of Joseph Madden v. Robert J. Moore Harry D. Beaston and Frank J. Gorman, city commissioners. Affirmed.
Petition for writ of mandamus. Before STAAKE, J.
The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Error assigned was decree of court.
The appeal is dismissed at the cost of the appellant.
Vivian Frank Gable, with him Albert Smith Faught and J. Lawrence Wetherill, for appellant.
F Shunk Brown, of Simpson & Brown, for Robert J. Moore and Harry D. Beaston, appellees.
Paul Reilly, for Frank J. Gorman, appellee.
Before FELL, C.J., MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
This appeal is from an order refusing a writ of mandamus to require the county commissioners to open the ballot box of an election district and recount the votes cast at a primary election. Section 11 of the Act of February 17, 1906, P.L. 36, provides that upon petition of ten qualified electors, setting forth that fraud has been committed in any election district, "together with a statement of the reasons why such an assertion is made," it shall be the duty of the commissioners to open the ballot box and recount the votes and that: "Any person aggrieved by any decision of the county commissioners relative to the counting of the votes may appeal therefrom to the court of common pleas of the proper county whose duty it shall be to hear said appeal, and to make such decree as right and justice shall require."
It appears from the petition for a mandamus that the three commissioners met and considered the petition of the electors for a recount that had been filed in their office, and decided by a vote of two to one not to grant the prayer thereof. It appears from the return of the majority of the commissioners that they refused to count the votes because in their judgment the petitioners had not stated any adequate reason for asserting that fraud had been committed and that the petition did not conform to the requirements of the act of 1906. With the sufficiency of the petition and the return thereto we are now concerned only as it affects the remedy sought by mandamus.
The duty of the commissioners was not merely...
To continue reading
Request your trial