Meyer v. Strouse
| Decision Date | 24 June 1966 |
| Citation | 221 A.2d 191,422 Pa. 136 |
| Parties | Charles T. MEYER v. Doyle F. STROUSE, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Patrick H. Fierro and Fierro & Miele, Williamsport, for appellant.
Henry M. Hipple, Lock Haven, for appellee.
Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
In this action of quo warranto, the lower court entered judgment against the defendant, Doyle F. Strouse, and ordered his ouster from the office of tax collector for the Township School District of Potter Township, Clinton County, Pennsylvania. Strouse filed this appeal.
When the case came before this Court for argument, the term of office involved had already expired. Since the only purpose of quo warranto is to try the right of the defendant to presently exercise the office contested, and admittedly the defendant is not now entitled to this, the issue is moot and will not be entertained by this Court.
Ridley Pk. Shopping Cen. v. Sun Ray Drug Co., 407 Pa. 230, 232, 180 A.2d 1, 3 (1962). See also, Manganese Steel F. Co. v. Commonwealth, 421 Pa. 67, 218 A.2d 307 (1966); Supreme Court Rules, rule 41; Schuster v. Gilberton Coal Co., 412 Pa. 353, 194 A.2d 346 (1963). This is not such a case.
Appellant urges that even if the question of the right to the office is moot, since he did serve in the office of tax collector, either de jure or de facto, that he is at least entitled to compensation and to have his right thereto litigated in this action. The issue and judgment in quo warranto is strictly governed and limited by the Act of June 14, 1836, P.L. 621, as amended, 12 P.S. § 2001 et seq. Relief of the nature involved is not permitted in this action under the statute.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peoples, In re
...470 (1901). Cf., Hardy v. Albert, 225 So.2d 127 (La.App.1969); Layle v. Schnipke, 384 Mich. 638, 186 N.W.2d 559 (1971); Meyer v. Strouse, 422 Pa. 136, 221 A.2d 191 (1966) (expiration of term of office renders removal proceeding moot). But where the statute imposes sanctions in addition to o......
-
Sweeney v. Tucker
...prayer for an injunction ordering Sweeney's reinstatement as a member of the House of Representatives is moot. See Meyer v. Strouse, 422 Pa. 136, 221 A.2d 191 (1966); Commonwealth ex rel. McCormick v. Swaney, 313 Pa. 565, 169 A. 883 (1934) (per curiam); Commonwealth ex rel. v. Floyd, 274 Pa......
- Com. v. Slaton
-
Com. v. Ahlborn
...has also recognized this exception to mootness. See e.g., In re Gross, 476 Pa. 203, 209, 382 A.2d 116, 119 (1978); Meyer v. Strouse, 422 Pa. 136, 221 A.2d 191 (1966); Wiest v. Mount Lebanon School District, 457 Pa. 166, 320 A.2d 362, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 967, 95 S.Ct. 231, 42 L.Ed.2d 183 ......