Goldsworthy v. Boyle

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April 27, 1896

Goldsworthy v. Boyle, 175 Pa. 246 (Pa. 1896)

34 A. 630; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1242

Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

All the material facts of this somewhat novel proceeding in equity, together with the reasons which prompted the dissolution of the preliminary injunction and dismissal of the bill, are fully set forth in the opinion of the learned president of the 29th judicial district, who specially presided at the hearing, and need not be repeated. We are satisfied from an examination of the record that the findings of fact as well as the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are substantially correct, and fully warranted the dismissal of the bill. Further discussion of the questions involved would serve no useful purpose. The decree is therefore affirmed on the opinion referred to, and the appeal is dismissed at plaintiffs’ costs.

Reference

Full Case Name: John W. Goldsworthy and Peter Lenahan, Poor Directors of the Poor District of Conyngham Township and Borough Centralia v. B. J. Boyle, Poor Director, Frank Brennan, Steward, and C. G. Murphy
Cited By: 10 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Election law — Certificate of election — Contest—Evidence. Where there has been an authorized election for a public office the certificate of election which is sanctioned by law or usage is the prima faciewritten title to the office, and can be set aside only by a contest in the-forms prescribed by law. After the judges of election have issued a certificate of election to one-person, they have no power to issue another certificate to another person» for the same office. Public offices — Equity—Injunction quo warranto. A bill in equity will not lie to restrain a person from acting in a public-office. The remedy is at law by quo warranto. At an election for poor directors, the judges of election issued a certificate to C. and subsequently a certificate to L. for the same office. The-board of poor directors consisted of three persons, two of whom, G. and’ 11., held over. G. recognized L. as elected, and D. recognized O. as-elected. G. and L. filed a bill in equity against D., and the steward and' tax collector whom D. and C. had appointed. Held, (1) that the organization of the board by G. and D. was not a regular and legal organization, of the board; (2) that a court of equity had no jurisdiction to restrain Dl and C., who were acting as a de facto board, and had not undertaken to-dispose of any of the property of the school district wrongfully, or to do-any other act inconsistent with their duties as poor directors; (3) that equity had no jurisdiction to determine whether L. or C. had been properly-elected.