Brower v. Kantner

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Brower v. Kantner, 9 Pa. Super. 94 (1898)
1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 122
Chriam, Orlady, Porter, Rice, Smith

Brower v. Kantner

Opinion of the Court

Per Chriam,

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing the plaintiffs’ bill, in which they prayed for a decree restraining the defendants “ from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs to exercise the rights and duties of warden and matron of said Schuylkill county prison.” The plaintiff claimed that he was the de facto warden while the defendants claimed that James H. Levan had been duly appointed to the office. The appeal does not involve the possession or ownership of real or personal property, or any right, the value of which does not exceed fl,000, but does involve the right to a public office. It is plain, therefore, that the appeal was erroneously taken to this court. See Com. v. O’Donnell, 7 Pa. Superior Ct. 49.

Now, December, 1898, the above mentioned appeal is certified at the cost of the appellants to the Supreme Court for hearing and decision.

Reference

Full Case Name
Calvin W. Brower, warden of Schuylkill county prison, and Elizabeth Brower, matron of the same v. Frank Kantner, commissioners of Schuylkill county, James H. Levan
Cited By
4 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Appeals — Jurisdiction, Superior Court — Right to public office. A decree restraining defendants from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs to exercise duties of warden and matron of a county prison does not involve the possession or ownership of real or personal property of a value not exceeding $1,000, but does involve the right to public office. Appeal lies to the Supreme and not to the Superior Court.