Commonwealth v. Conroy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth v. Conroy, 267 Pa. 518 (Pa. 1920)
110 A. 166; 1920 Pa. LEXIS 903
Brown, Frazer, Moschzisker, Simpson, Walling
Commonwealth v. Conroy
Opinion of the Court
In entering judgment for the defendants the court below said: “The relator in the present case was removed from the office of councilman by the borough council, and another person was elected to fill his place. The latter person is now in office with a color of title, and is a de facto councilman. The relator attacks his right to occupy the office. He must do this by quo warranto proceedings. If in such proceeding the relator establishes his right to the office, and the council refuses to admit him, then he may proceed by mandamus.” This is a concise, clear and correct statement of the whole case, and, on it, the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Commonwealth ex rel. v. Conroy
- Cited By
- 10 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Public officers — Borough councilman — Quo warranto — Mandamus — Testing right to office — Removal of councilman. Where a councilman of a borough is removed from his office of councilman by the borough council, and another person is elected to fill his place, such person is in office with a color of title and is a de facto councilman. If the former incumbent attacks such person’s right to occupy the office, he must do so by quo warranto proceedings, and not by mandamus.' If in quo warranto proceedings he establishes his right to the office, and the council refuses to admit him, he may then proceed by mandamus.