Page, In re

• Decision Date: 16 December 1964
• Citation: 205 A.2d 637,205 Pa.Super. 12
• Parties: In re Removal of Deputy Constable Raymond PAGE, of the 12th Ward of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Appellant. In re Removal of Deputy Constable Ralph FABBOZZI, of the 12th Ward of the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 637

205 A.2d 637

205 Pa.Super. 12

In re Removal of Deputy Constable Raymond PAGE, of the 12th Ward of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County Pennsylvania, Appellant In re Removal of Deputy Constable Ralph FABBOZZI, of the 12th Ward of the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Dec. 16, 1964.

S. Louis Farino, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

F. P. Dixon, L. Pat McGrath, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before ERVIN, Acting P. J., and WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.

FLOOD, Judge.

The appellants question the right of the constable who appointed them to remove them without a hearing or order to show cause. The constable wrote a letter to the Clerk of Quarter Sessions Court notifying him of the removal of the appellants as deputy constables and requesting him to note this on his records. Later the court entered an order approving the revocation and ordering it to be filed. Following this appeal, the court below filed an opinion giving two reasons for its action: (1) Allegheny County Quarter Sessions Rule 36, § 4, which provides that upon petition of the constable, 'the Court shall cancel the commission of any deputy appointed by him', and (2) the power of the constable who appointed the deputy to remove him.

Since no petition was filed in accordance with the local rule of court, we shall consider only the second reason. We think it Is sound, although where a rule of court exists such as the cited rule in Allegheny County it is better practice for the constable to file such a petition so as to make the removal, like the appointment, a matter of record.

There is no statute requiring approval of the court of quarter sessions for the removal of a deputy constable. He is merely the agent of the elected constable, and like any other agent, his authority may be revoked at any time by his principal. Restatement, Second, Agency § 118 (1957). This court has said in National Cash Register Co. v. Berg, 99 Pa.Super. 34, at p. 37 (1930): 'A deputy constable may be appointed for various reasons, when shown to the satisfaction of the quarter sessions court. The constable so appointing executes his office by himself or by his deputy. No separate office of deputy constable exists under the law, and when a vacancy occurs in the office of constable, ipso facto the deputy ceases to exist as such. By long usage and custom deputy constables have performed all duties which constables are authorized by law to perform * * *.' Therefore despite the fact that the deputy is clothed with the official powers of the elected constable upon his appointment with the approval of the court, the constable is responsible, like any other principal, for the actions of the deputy as his agent. National Cash Register Co. v. Berg, supra. Consequently, the constable should have the right at any time, like any other principal, to terminate the deputy's power to act for him and fasten responsibility upon him for the deputy's actions.

As was said by the distinguished Judge FINLETTER of the Philadelphia Quarter Sessions Court in te case of In re Jacob Horivitz, 27 Pa.Dist.R. 578 (1918): 'The question is whether the constable has power to revoke the appointment. It would seem that he has. 'Deputies are simply assistants or agents of the...