Commonwealth v. Maxwell
Citations
- 271 Pa. 378
- 114 A. 825
- 16 A.L.R. 1134
- 1921 Pa. LEXIS 513
Syllabus
<p>Jury — Qualifications—Constitutional law — “Trial by jury shall be as heretofore” — W'omen as jurors — Nineteenth Amendment to Constitution of United States — “Elector”—Words cmd phrases— Act of April 10,1867.</p> <p>1. The provision of the Constitutions of Pennsylvania of 1790, 1838 and 1873 “that trial by jury shall be as heretofore,” refers to the kinds of causes triable before juries, and the trial, not the qualifications of the jurors.</p> <p>2. The qualifications of jurors is now, and has alwayg been, even at common law, the subject of legislative control.</p> <p>3. The term “elector” is a technical, generic term, descriptive of a citizen having constitutional and statutory qualifications that enable him to vote.</p> <p>4. The designation “qualified elector” in the Act of April 10, 1867, P. L. 62, requiring jury commissioners to select a jury “from the whole qualified electors” of the county, embraces all electors at the time jurors are selected from the body of the electors, and also all those who may be added to the electorate from time to time.</p> <p>5. Under the Act of April 10, 1867, and the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, women are eligible to serve as jurors in all the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.</p> <p>Statutes — Construction—Application of new cases and new subjects.</p> <p>6. Legislative enactments in general and comprehensive terms apply to new eases, and to new subjects that are created from time to time, and which come within their general scope and policy.</p> <p>In re Opinion of the Justices (Mass.), 130 N. E. 685, distinguished.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- trial by jury is one of the “modes of procedure”
- detailed discussion of state constitutional provision
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Frazer, Kephart, Moschzisker, Rossiter, Sadler, Schaffer, Simpson, Walling
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Commonwealth v. SorrellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-12-30· cited 64×
- Cain v. BowlbyTenth Circuit· 1940-09-03· cited 38×
- Blum v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-06-03· cited 33×
- Tynan v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1924-03-24· cited 30×
- United States v. RoemigN.D. Iowa· 1943-11-23· cited 27×
- Commonwealth v. ValottaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1924-01-07· cited 26×
- People Ex Rel. Denny v. TraegerIllinois Supreme Court· 1939-08-08· cited 19×
- Commonwealth v. WhartonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-09-24· cited 17×
- State v. RosenbergSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1923-02-23· cited 15×
- Behnke v. JordanOregon Supreme Court· 1976-06-04· cited 9×
- Cahill v. StateSuperior Court of Delaware· 1980-01-30· cited 3×
- In Re Asbestos LitigationSuperior Court of Delaware· 1988-06-28· cited 1×
- Corso v. CorsoAlleghany County Court of Common Pleas· 1972-05-18· cited 1×
- (1972)Wisconsin Attorney General Reports· 1972-03-08
- Hanna's Election ContestClinton County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1924-01-09
- Commonwealth v. HallPhiladelphia County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1926-07-01
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.