Brown v. Leib
Citations
- 267 Pa. 24
- 110 A. 463
- 1920 Pa. LEXIS 804
Syllabus
<p>Appeals — Assignments of error — Election law — Nominations—■ Certificates — Academic question — Moot case — Precedent.</p> <p>1. An appeal from an order quashing a writ of mandamus to show cause why a certificate of nomination should not be filed, raises merely an academic question after the election has passed, and would not ordinarily be entertained. If the appellate court considers such an appeal on its merits, owing to the importance to the public of the question involved, such action of the court must not be regarded as a precedent for the determination of such questions in the future.</p> <p>Election law — Nominations—Certificates—Political party — Executive committee — Filling vacancies — Board of citizens — Acts of June 10, 1898, P. L. and June 12,1918, P. L. 719.</p> <p>2. Under the Act of June 12, 1913, P. L. 719, section 2, to qualify as a political party and make nominations as such, the body of the electors, of which the party is composed, must be such that one of its candidates at either the general or municipal election preceding the primary polled at least five per cent of the largest entire vote cast for any elected candidate.</p> <p>3. If a number of persons assemble and organize a political party not meeting the requirements of the act, and appoint an executive committee to make nominations in case of vacancies, and such committee is designated as the executive committee of a political body, the authority given the committee, after the discovery of its lack of power under the Act of 1913, cannot be construed to give its members power to act as a committee of citizens in accordance with the Act of June 10, 1893, P. L. 424, which authorizes a body of citizens which has made original nominations to appoint a committee to fill vacancies and “file the requisite nomination certificate” therefor.</p> <p>4. In such a case the law makes a distinction between combinations existing as political parties, and those not parties, by providing a distinctive p
Judges: Brown, Frazer, Kephart, Moschzisker, Walling
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.