Commonwealth v. Fitler

Citations

• 136 Pa. 129

Syllabus

<p>1. The writ of mandamus is not a proper remedy, except when there is a clear legal right in the relator, a corresponding duty in the defendant, and the want of any other adequate, appropriate and specific remedy: Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh, 34 Pa. 496; Lehigh Water Co.’s App., 102 Pa. 515.</p> <p>2. The certification, as a municipal ordinance, of a bill which was vetoed by the mayor and failed to pass over his veto, will not be compelled by mandamus, on the ground that the veto message was ineffective because sent by mistake to the wrong chamber of councils; its validity cannot be decided in this summary manner.</p> <p>3. So far as § 4, act of May 23, 1874, P. L. 231, relating to the government of cities, requires the mayor to return a vetoed ordinance to councils within ten days, it is mandatory; but the provision that it shall be returned to the branch of councils wherein it originated, is merely directory: Per Paxson, C. J.</p> <p>4. Under the practice prevailing in the city councils of Philadelphia, it seems that a bill introduced into the common councils, referred without consideration to a joint committee, reported by it to select council of which its chairman is a member, and first passed by that body, originates therein, within the meaning of said act.</p>