Foy's Case

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Foy's Case

73 A. 324, 224 Pa. 358, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 793

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 12, 1909

DocketAppeal, No. 191

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 A. 324 (Foy's Case) 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

Foy's Case, 73 A. 324, 224 Pa. 358, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 793 (Pa. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

P. C. Foy, the appellant, was returned to the office of the county commissioners of Schuylkill county as having been nominated in the middle ward of the borough of Girardville at a primary election held on January 18,1908. Exceptions were filed to his nomination February 6 following, which, four days later, were sustained by the court. This appeal is not from the action of the court sustaining the exceptions, but from the refusal to grant a rehearing on the petition of the appellant presented February 24, 1908 — eight days after the election. The single assignment of error is the refusal to rehear the case. On this certiorari we pass only upon the regularity of the record, and as nothing appears from it showing that the court erred or abused its discretion in refusing the rehearing, its action is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

P. C. Foy, the appellant, was returned to the office of the county commissioners of Schuylkill county as having been nominated in the middle ward of the borough of Girardville at a primary election held on January 18,1908. Exceptions were filed to his nomination February 6 following, which, four days later, were sustained by the court. This appeal is not from the action of the court sustaining the exceptions, but from the refusal to grant a rehearing on the petition of the appellant presented February 24, 1908 — eight days after the election. The single assignment of error is the refusal to rehear the case. On this certiorari we pass only upon the regularity of the record, and as nothing appears from it showing that the court erred or abused its discretion in refusing the rehearing, its action is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A. 324, 224 Pa. 358, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foys-case-pa-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack