Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FOLTZ APPEAL (05/26/52)

May 26, 1952

FOLTZ APPEAL


Appeal, No. 129, March T., 1952, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Westmoreland County, August T., 1950, No. 17, in re Complaint and petition for rule to show cause why offices of William W. Shoaf et al., Supervisors, should not be declared vacant etc. Order affirmed; reargument refused June 17, 1952.

COUNSEL

William T. Dom, with him Kunkle & Trescher, for appellants.

James Gregg, with him Portser, Gregg & McConnell, for appellees.

Before Drew, C.j., Stern, Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey and Musmanno, JJ.

Author: Musmanno

[ 370 Pa. Page 568]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO

On October 10, 1950, a complaint and petition, under the authority of Sec. 503 of The Second Class Township Law (1947 P.L. 1481, as amended; 53 P.S. 19093-503) was filed in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Westmoreland County, asking for a rule to show cause why the offices of William W. Shoaf, Joseph P. Sittman and William H. Fennel as Supervisors of Sewickley Township, should not be declared vacant, and another appointed in the stead of each of them.

The Complaint was signed by 682 citizens of Sewickley Township, being more than 5% of the registered electors of the township, the minimum number required for such petition by the Township Code referred to. The Complaint enumerated 40 reasons why the supervisors should be removed from office. Judge RICHARD D. LAIRD allowed the rule, heard testimony on the complaint, and on October 8, 1951, made the rule absolute.

[ 370 Pa. Page 569]

Exceptions to the Judge's order were filed the next day and argument was later heard on the matter before a Court en banc made up of Judges LAIRD, McWHERTER, BAUER and O'CONNELL, who reversed the previous order, and discharged the rule of the complainants.

From that order of the Court en banc an appeal has been taken to this Court.

A review of the entire record confirms the correctness of the action of the lower Court in discharging the rule entered October 8, 1951, and in dismissing the complaint.

The lower court considered seriatim the 40 paragraphs in the Complaint and pointed out why not one by itself, or in combination with any other or others, constituted cause to oust the supervisors from office. We quote with approval the following statement from the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.