Commonwealth v. Conroy

110 A. 166, 267 Pa. 518, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 903
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 26, 1920·No. Appeal, No. 6·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commonwealth v. Conroy, 110 A. 166, 267 Pa. 518, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 903 (Pa. 1920).

110 A. 166 (Commonwealth v. Conroy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chalfin v. Specter
233 A.2d 562 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1967)
Commonwealth ex rel. Specter v. Martin
232 A.2d 729 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1967)
Mayer v. Hemphill
190 A.2d 444 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1963)
Driskel v. O'Connor
15 A.2d 366 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Brinton v. Kerr
181 A. 569 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
Williams's Appeal
167 A. 587 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. v. Wherry
152 A. 846 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)
Jaramillo v. State Ex Rel. Board of County Com'rs
250 P. 729 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1926)