Skip to main content
· 7/10/1913

Commonwealth v. Hyneman

Citations

  • 242 Pa. 244
  • 88 A. 1015
  • 1913 Pa. LEXIS 873

Syllabus

<p>Constitutional law — Ariide Y, Section 6 of Constitution — Construction — Courts—Philadelphia County — Increase in number of judges — Act of March 29, 1918, P. L. 20.</p> <p>1. Where the legislature does what is forbidden, or undertakes to do what is authorized but in a way that is violative of a constitutional direction, the duty of the courts to pronounce such legislation void is not to be evaded. No statute ought to be declared void except for clear and palpable violation or disregard of the Constitution. At the same time, the Constitution is not to receive a technical construction, but is to be studied in the light of ordinary language and such construction is to be placed upon it as was placed upon it by the people whose bond it is.</p> <p>2. The number of judges in the County of Philadelphia may be increased by the legislature from time to time but only in the way the Constitution permits.</p> <p>3. The Act of March 29, 1913, P. L. 20, providing for the addition of one judge to each of the five courts of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is violative of Section 6, of Article Y, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, relating to the jurisdiction, powers and organization of the Courts of Common Pleas, which section, in the provision that “the number of judges......may be increased from time to time and whenever such increase shall amount in the whole to three, such three judges shall constitute a distinct and separate court,” contemplates the creation of a distinct and separate court whenever the increase in the whole number of judges in the county shall amount to three; and the judges appointed under such act do not have a tenure to their offices.</p> <p>Jurisdiction Supreme Court — Original jurisdiction — Quo warranto — Common Pleas judge — Section 3, Article V, of Constitution.</p> <p>4. By the third section of the judiciary article of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is given original jurisdiction in cases of “quo warranto as to all officers of the Com

Judges: Beown, Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Moschziskeb, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.