Appeals, Nos. 206, 207 and 208, Jan. T., 1950, from judgments of Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1950, Nos. 2966, 2968 and 2967, respectively, in re Application for Review of Action of the Philadelphia County Board of Elections, in the matter of Louis Hammerman et al., etc. Judgments affirmed.
Bernard S. Ochman, in propria persona, and Domenic Furia, with them Herman Steerman, for objectors, appellants.
Philip Richman, with him Richman & Richman, for petitioners, appellees.
William T. Connor, for County Board of Elections.
Before Drew, C.j., Stern, Stearne and Jones, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE JONES
These appeals are from several judgments, each of which amends the respective jurat to the "Qualified Elector" affidavit on the particular nominating petition in issue and directs that the petition, as so amended, be received and filed by the county board of elections of Philadelphia County. As the appeals raise the same question, they will be dealt with in one opinion.
The objections of the respective appellants to the nominating petitions in question are the same, viz., that some of the requisite number of electors' signatures to the petitions were subscribed, as evidenced by their corresponding dates, at times subsequent to the dates of the jurats to the affidavits of the respective circulators of the petitions and that the petitions were, for that reason, defective and should be rejected. Within the time prescribed by Sec. 977 of the Pennsylvania Election Code of 1937, as amended by the Act of May 21, 1943, P.L. 353 (25 PS § 2937 Pkt. Part), the appellants severally lodged their objections to the respective petitions with the appropriate court of common pleas which, thereupon, fixed April 5, 1950, as the time for a hearing on the objections, the date thus fixed being within the time limited by Sec. 977 for the purpose. Had no other course been pursued, the court would have had the power under Sec. 977 of the code to enter upon a hearing of the objections and, thereafter, to have made orders to precisely the same effect as the judgments now here on appeal. The appellants freely so concede, as indeed they necessarily must.
However, notwithstanding that the court's competent jurisdiction in the premises had thus attached, the county board of elections on April 3, 1950 (a week after the last day for receiving and filing nominating petitions), assumed to act with respect to the subject matter
by rejecting the nominating petitions and refusing to accept them for filing. And, when the objections came on two days later for the appointed hearing before the court, the learned trial judge considered the matter moot in view of the action lately taken by the county board of elections and dismissed the objections. In passing, we think it not inappropriate to observe that the court, whose jurisdiction had been properly invoked, could have competently proceeded to a hearing on the objections, regardless of what the county board of elections had belatedly done, and have disposed of the matters on their merits pursuant to the authority conferred by Sec. 977 of the election code, as amended. But, that was not done and, as the situation then stood, the petitions were rejected by action of the county board of elections.
Thus, it became incumbent upon the candidates named in the rejected petitions to act directly if they wished to protect their rights in the circumstances. That, they did one day later (April 6, 1950) by petitioning the court of common pleas of the county under Sec. 976 of the election code, as amended by the Act of July 28, 1941, P.L. 526, and the Act of June 28, 1947, P.L. 1038 (25 PS § 2936 Pkt. Part), for a review of the ultimate action of the county board of elections and for a writ of mandamus to compel the board's acceptance and filing of the petitions. On these applications for review and mandamus, the court duly entered upon a hearing and found as facts that the affidavits to each of the nominating petitions in question had been taken before the same notary public, that the affidavit in each instance was actually taken after the date of the last signature to the petition had been subscribed and that the obviously incorrect date in the jurat was ...