Appeals, Nos. 24 and 25, Feb. T., 1958, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace of Luzerne County, April T., 1956, No. 222, in re petition to consolidate wards in the Borough of Plymouth, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Appeal quashed.
Max Rosenn, with him Joseph J. Gale, and Rosenn, Jenkins & Greenwald, for appellants.
Joseph P. Olexy, with him Edward E. Hosey, for appellees.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ. (hirt and Gunther, JJ., absent).
[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 34]
Pursuant to section 601 of The Borough Code,*fn1 the Court of Quarter Sessions of Luzerne County, upon petition, appointed a commission to inquire into the propriety of consolidating the wards of Plymouth Borough. The commission first recommended that the court abolish all wards and ward lines, but the court, concluding that there was no basis in the law for the recommendation of the commission, remanded the report "for further consideration and an adjudication in conformity with the statute."
[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 35]
The commission, thereupon, filed a second report in which it recommended that the 13 wards be consolidated into seven wards. This report was confirmed nisi, but subsequently it, too, was remanded to the commission. On April 24, 1957, the commission filed its third report in which it again recommended that all ward lines and wards in the borough be abolished. This report was confirmed nisi on the day it was filed, and absolutely on May 28, 1957.
At the time the report was confirmed, the Borough of Plymouth had 13 councilmen - one elected from each ward.*fn2
At the primary election, held between the date when the report was confirmed nisi and the date when it was confirmed absolutely, Councilmen Price and May, were nominated for re-election from their respective wards.
On October 2, 1957, after the expiration of the term in which the final order of May 28th had been entered, and after the statutory period of appeal had passed, Price and May obtained a rule upon the original and intervening petitioners to show cause why the order of May 28th should not be vacated.
After argument, the court below concluded it had no power to vacate the order "because the term at which it was entered expired on the 16th day of September, 1957, ...