Moore v. Neil

Citations

• 233 Pa. 408
• 82 A. 496
• 1912 Pa. LEXIS 843

Syllabus

<p>Election law — Candidate’s petition — Apparent regularity — Duty of county commissioners — Withdrawal from petition — Act of February 17, 1906, P. L. 36.</p> <p>1. It is the plain duty of the county commissioners, under the Act of February 17,1906, P. L. 36, when a candidate’s petition is presented to them, even though it be regular on its face, to inquire whether the requirements of the act have been complied with in regard to the number of signers and their qualifications as electors of the division.</p> <p>2. In such a case the commissioners have authority to refuse such a petition, where it appears that ten of the fifty-six signers of the petition had been induced to sign upon a false representation that the candidate was a democrat and had withdrawn from the petition, and that the remaining signers were not qualified voters of the democratic party.</p> <p>3. There is nothing in the relation of a signer of such a petition to the other signers that would make it inequitable for them to withdraw.</p> <p>Mandamus — Practice, C. P. — Alternative vorit — Act of June 8, 1893, P. L. S/t5.</p> <p>4. It is only where the right to require the performance of an act is clear that a peremptory mandamus may be awarded in the first instance. An alternative writ under the Act of June 8, 1893, P. L. 345, should be asked in a proceeding to compel county commissioners upon petition to print a candidate’s name on the ballots under the uniform primary act.</p>