Commonwealth, ex rel. Gast v. Pfromm

Citations

• 255 Pa. 485
• 100 A. 276
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 479

Syllabus

<p>Quo warranto — Act of June H, 1836, P. L. 621 — Public interest —Private grievance — Relator—Attorney general — District attorney ■ — Improper practice.</p> <p>1. When it is suggested that one is usurping a public office, the Quo Warranto Act of June 14, 1836, P. L. 621, makes provision for two distinct proceedings, the first in the interest of the public and the second to protect any private individual who may have a special grievance.</p> <p>2. If one without authority of law holds a public office and thereby keeps out of it another who is entitled thereto, he not only commits a public, but also a private, wrbng, and the individual aggrieved may have a writ in the name of the Commonwealth to secure his right.</p> <p>3. Where a public wrong alone is to be redressed, and the only question to be determined is whether the person in possession of the office is holding it without authority of law, either the attorney general or the district attorney is the proper relator.</p> <p>4. It is improper to force upon the record as a party to a quo warranto proceeding the holder of an office at the complaint of one who lays no claim to the particular office occupied.</p> <p>5. In a quo’warranto proceeding, the relator questioned the right of A to hold the office of borough councilman. After the proceedings_ had been begun, the court made an order upon B, another councilman, to appear as respondent upon the ground that B had been elected by the council to fill a vacancy by the vote of A, who unlawfully held the office which the relator claimed. Held, that the making of B a party to the proceeding was erroneous. -</p> <p>Special verdicts — Form.</p> <p>6. It is the province of a special verdict to find and place on record all the essential facts in the case, and what is not found is presumed not to exist; but, where a general verdict is sufficient, it is immaterial that the special verdict is irregular.</p> <p>Practice, Supreme Court — Assignments of error.</p> <p>7. Where the