White v. Moore
Decision Date | 07 February 1927 |
Docket Number | 137 |
Citation | 136 A. 218,288 Pa. 411 |
Parties | White et al. v. Moore et al |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 11, 1927
Appeal, No. 137, Jan. T., 1927, by Irma B. Cullings, Jesse T Workman and Edmund A. McCadden, from decree of C.P. Delaware Co., June T., 1925, No. 2545, on bill in equity in suit of Herbert S. White et al. v. Benjamin F. Moore, Clyde A Campbell, Irma B. Cullings, Jesse T. Workman and Edmund A. McCadden, School Directors of the School District of Prospect Park Borough. Reversed.
Taxpayers' bill to remove school directors.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
The case was heard before JOHNSON, P.J., who died before filing an opinion. BROOMALL, J., entered a decree removing Irma B. Cullings, Jesse T. Workman and Edmund A. McCadden from their office of school directors. The defendants so removed appealed.
Error assigned was, inter alia, decree, quoting record.
The decree of the court below is reversed and the petition is dismissed.
Francis Shunk Brown, with him William C. Alexander, for appellants. -- The facts do not justify a decree of ouster: Silsby Mfg. Co. v. Allentown, 153 Pa. 319; Phila. Co. v. Pittsburgh, 253 Pa. 147; Whetstone v. Stapleton, 47 Pa. C.C.R. 222; Scranton City School Directors, 6 Pa. D. & C. 105.
Coal is not "school supplies" within the meaning of section 708 of the School Code.
George H. Detweiler, for appellees. -- It is too late to raise the question whether coal is "school supplies."
The court committed no error in removing the directors: Summit Hill School Directors, 258 Pa. 575; Slippery Rock Twp. School Directors, 222 Pa. 538.
Before FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
This proceeding is under section 217 of the School Code of May 18, 1911, P.L. 309, for the removal of school directors for violation of the provisions of section 708 of the code, relating to the purchase of supplies, and also section 617 relating to the letting of contracts for construction or repairs. After answer filed and testimony taken, the judge who heard the evidence died before adjudication was entered and the case was referred to another judge who filed an opinion in which he found, as a fact, that respondents had violated the provisions of section 708 in that they purchased coal in an amount in excess of $1,300 without publication in accordance with the provisions of that section. The court therefore made an order removing three of the directors from office, the term of office of the remaining two having expired in the meantime. From such order we have this appeal.
The provisions of the School Code which must be construed in disposing of this appeal are as follows:
The petition charged respondents failed to comply with the above provisions in purchasing school supplies of the first class, consisting of desks, piano, janitor's supplies and a flag pole, and also failed to advertise for bids for coal and school supplies of the second class, consisting of pencils and tablets. The alleged violation of section 617, relating to the procuring of competitive bids for labor and materials in the construction or repairing of buildings, consisted of the failure to require contractors to give bond for the laying of sidewalks, grading and pointing. Many of these charges were not supported by proof, while others were satisfactorily explained by respondents, and the court below based its opinion solely on the admitted failure of respondents to advertise or post notices requesting bids for coal, saying:
The court below based its conclusion on the assumption that the contract for the purchase of coal was within section 708 of the code specifying the method of advertising for the purchase of school supplies of the second class. After a careful examination of this and other sections of the act, we are unable to agree with the court below in its classification of coal. The sections which it is charged respondents violated are under article VII which bears the general heading "books, furniture and supplies," and the first section (701) requires the board to Section 706, quoted above, divides "school supplies" into two classes. Clearly coal is not a "school apparatus" within the first class, and it seems equally clear that it does not come within the phrase "other supplies . . . necessary for school use, not included in the first class." The entire article VII indicates the "supp...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Jennings
... ... 338); or (2) On a ground not raised in ... or by the Court below' (Commonwealth v ... Robinson, 317 Pa. 321, 323, 176 A. 908; White v ... Moore, 288 Pa. 411, 416--417, 136 A. 218) ... 'However, ... this general rule will not be applied (FN*) where there is ... basic ... ...
-
Adoption of R. I., In re
...that a basic and fundamental right was involved. See Commonwealth v. Jennings, 442 Pa. 18, 25, 274 A.2d 767 (1971); White v. Moore, 288 Pa. 411, 136 A. 218 (1927). NIX, Justice I completely adopt the majority's view that the appellant herein was entitled to the representation of counsel dur......
-
Commonwealth v. Schroeder
... ... Just ... what errors are to be considered basis or fundamental must ... necessarily depend on the facts of each case: White v ... Moore, 288 Pa. 411; Myers v. Com., 83 Pa. 143 ... Defense ... of irresistible impulse was available to defendant even if ... the ... ...
-
In re Adoption of R. I.
... ... right was involved. See Commonwealth v. Jennings, ... 442 Pa. 18, 25, 274 A.2d 767 (1971); White v. Moore, ... 288 Pa. 411, 136 A. 218 (1927) ... NIX, Justice ... (concurring) ... I completely ... adopt the majority's view ... ...