Commonwealth v. Roop

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Roop

66 A. 869, 217 Pa. 534, 1907 Pa. LEXIS 752

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 22, 1907

DocketAppeal, No. 217

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A. 869 (Commonwealth v. Roop) 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.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Roop, 66 A. 869, 217 Pa. 534, 1907 Pa. LEXIS 752 (Pa. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Elkin,

The learned court below on motion quashed -the suggestion for a writ of quo warranto filed by the relators, requiring the respondents to show by what warrant they claim the right to have, use and enjoy respectively-the offices of president, treasurer, tax collector, delinquent tax collector, solicitor and undertaker, being managers and officers for the relief and employment of the poor of the township of Germantown. For the reasons stated in the opinion just handed down in Commonwealth ex rel. v. Bowditch, ante, p. 527, the assignments of error are sustained.

Decree reversed, suggestion for writ of quo warranto reinstated, with leave to the respondents to answer over, in order that the parties may have a hearing on the merits so that all the questions involved may be determined in accordance with the opinion handed down in that case.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Elkin,

The learned court below on motion quashed -the suggestion for a writ of quo warranto filed by the relators, requiring the respondents to show by what warrant they claim the right to have, use and enjoy respectively-the offices of president, treasurer, tax collector, delinquent tax collector, solicitor and undertaker, being managers and officers for the relief and employment of the poor of the township of Germantown. For the reasons stated in the opinion just handed down in Commonwealth ex rel. v. Bowditch, ante, p. 527, the assignments of error are sustained.

Decree reversed, suggestion for writ of quo warranto reinstated, with leave to the respondents to answer over, in order that the parties may have a hearing on the merits so that all the questions involved may be determined in accordance with the opinion handed down in that case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A. 869, 217 Pa. 534, 1907 Pa. LEXIS 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-roop-pa-1907.