Commonwealth v. Durkin
This text of 91 A. 918 (Commonwealth v. Durkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
91 A. 918, 245 Pa. 507, 1914 Pa. LEXIS 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-durkin-pa-1914.