Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County, in case of William Hansen, Richard Dunn, John R. Choffel, Horace Hart, Paul Dennis, John Heltzel, Leonard Petersen, Richard E. Lawhead, Henry Shesky, Duane Hart, Robert Stallsmith, Larry Hart and Willard Buchanan v. David H. Kurtzman, Intermediate Unit No. 5 and/or Administrative Unit No. 5, Board of Directors of the Crawford Central School District, State Board of Education, State Council of Basic Education, Crawford County Board of School Directors and Allan Moon, No. 7, September Term, 1971. Transferred from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, April 13, 1972. Transferred from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, May 15, 1972.
Frederic G. Antoun, with him Louis M. Tarasi, Jr., for appellants.
Gordon R. Miller, with him Donald C. Buseck and Robert F. Seaker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. President Judge Bowman did not participate. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson.
The plaintiffs are elected School Directors of the Cochranton Area Jointure School District which, pursuant to action taken under the authority of Act 150, being the Act of July 8, 1968, P.L. , No. 150, 24 P.S. § 2400.1, et seq. (Supp. 1972), has been merged
into and became part of the Meadville Area Union School District on July 1, 1971. They bring this action to enjoin the joint operation of the Cochranton Area Jointure School District and the Meadville Area Union School District.
The record is riddled with what could be considered to be procedural defects, beginning with the complaint which was not signed by anyone, albeit all 13 plaintiffs verified it on oath. This may not have been an oversight for, under Rule 1023 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, one of the purposes of signing the complaint is to constitute a certificate by the person signing it that it is not interposed for delay. We can find no prayer for a preliminary injunction. The complaint was not endorsed with a notice to plead. Nevertheless, a rule to show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted was issued. This was followed by defendants filing preliminary objections and a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court heard argument on the rule and the preliminary objections and filed an order discharging the rule, sustaining the preliminary objections, and dismissing the complaint. The case was appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on September 27, 1971; transferred to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania by the Superior Court on April 13, 1972; and transferred by the Supreme Court to this Court on May 15, 1972. This Court immediately listed it for argument on June 5, 1972, heard argument on that date and will dispose of it on the merits.
Seldom has a Common Pleas Judge had the facts and law involved in a case so clearly before him or his judicially expressed views more clearly known, and at the same time followed the law contrary to his views so recently established by the Appellate Courts of Pennsylvania, only to have his order appealed. We affirm.
The lower court appropriately summarized the issues averred in the complaint to be:
"(1) that the reorganization of school districts into larger units has not increased ...