Commonwealth v. Howell

Decided April 30, 1900

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1900-04-30

Appeal, No. 39, Jan. T., 1900, by plaintiff:, from order of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T., 1899, No. 351, discharging rule for mandamus, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Washburn, Williams & Co. v. Esdras Howell, Controller of the City of Scranton. Rule for mandamus. From the record it appeared that the board of controllers of the school district of the city of Scranton had drawn a warrant in favor of Washburn, Williams & Company upon the treasurer of the school district.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1901

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1900-04-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion by

Me. Justice Mitchell,

¶2This case involves the same general view of the constitutionality of those portions of the Act of May 23, 1874, P. L. 254, which relate to school districts, that has been discussed in Com. ex rel. v. Gilligan, ante, p. 504.

¶3The city controller is an officer whose office is created and *520its duties provided by the act in question. Having accepted the office it comes with very bad grace from him to refuse performance of part of the prescribed duties on the ground that they are not constitutionally imposed upon him. But this view of the act has been settled to be erroneous in Com. ex rel. v. Gilligan, supra, and for the reasons there given the judgment must be reversed. It was agreed at the argument that the case should be disposed of without question as to the form of the issue, and as if upon demurrer to the answer to an alternative mandamus. The judgment is therefore reversed with costs, and a peremptory mandamus directed to be awarded.