Commonwealth v. Durkin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth v. Durkin, 245 Pa. 507 (Pa. 1914)
91 A. 918; 1914 Pa. LEXIS 906
Bbown, Mesteezat, Moschziskeb, Pottee, Stewabt
Commonwealth v. Durkin
Opinion of the Court
At the election held in the Borough of Sugar Notch on November 4, 1913, two of the councilmen to be elected were to fill unexpired terms caused by death. By section 4 of the Act of May 22,1895, P. L. 109, it was necessary for the qualified electors to designate on their ballots that they voted for two persons named thereon to fill unexpired terms. This was not done, and it was impossible to tell from the ballots cast who of the six receiving the majority of the votes cast had been elected for the unexpired terms. These were to be filled in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1895. The‘Act of June 19, 1911, P. L. 1047, makes none for them. This was the correct view of the learned court below, and the judgment of ouster is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Commonwealth, ex rel. v. Durkin
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Elections — Borough councilmen — Unexpired terms — Ballots— Act of May ££, 1895, P. L. 109 — Quo warranto. Where a suggestion for a writ of quo warranto to oust borough councilmen from office alleged that at a borough election by virtue of which defendants claimed title to office there were six councilmen to be elected, two to fill unexpired terms, ¡and four for full terms, but that the electors did not designate on their ballots that they voted for two of the candidates for unexpired terms, as required by the Act of May 22, 1895, P. L. 109, Section 4, so that it was impossible to tell from the ballots cast who of the six candidates receiving the majority votes had been elected for the unexpired terms, the court made no error on demurrer to the suggestion in entering judgment of ouster in favor of the Commonwealth.