Commonwealth v. Wickersham
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Commonwealth v. Barnett (Pa. 1901)
- Kelly v. Harrisburg National Bank (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas 1937)
- Smith v. Becht (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas 1925)
- J. D. Hollingshead Co. v. Board of Control of State Institutions (Iowa 1923)
- Neff v. Pennsylvania Daughters of Liberty (Pa. Super. Ct. 1916)
- Emerson v. Standard Protective Society (Pa. Super. Ct. 1911)
- Wilson v. Louisiana Purchase Exposition Commission (Iowa 1907)
- Commonwealth ex rel. State Hospital for the Insane v. County of Philadelphia (Pa. 1899)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered
Upon the question of the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin county to issue a mandamus to a state officer, we adopt the opinion of the learned president of the court below.
Apart' from this question, we think, even if the court had jurisdiction, the relator did not show himself entitled to the mandamus for which he prayed. It is true, that by the Act of April 9th 1867, it was provided that serving as county, city or borough superintendent shall be deemed a sufficient test of qualification, but the act also provides that, if upon examination of the evidence of competency it shall not prove to be such as is required, or if objection be made in conformity with the fourth section of the Act of April 17th 1865, the superintendent of common schools shall appoint two competent persons, himself being the third, to examine the person elected, and if upon such examination his qualifications are found insufficient, the commission shall not issue. The answer of the respondent shows that such objections were made,' the committee appointed, and a report made unfavorable to the relator. It is clear, we think, that it is only where no objections are interposed, that the proviso, that serving as county, city or borough superintendent shall be deemed a sufficient test of qualification. Such service may have shown that the candidate was entirely disqualified.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.