Case Name: ARCHIBALD BOROUGH
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1884-03-10
Citations: 2 Walk. 495
Docket Number: No. 181
Parties: ARCHIBALD BOROUGH.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the supreme court of pennsylvania which have been omitted from the regular reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 495–497

Head Matter:
ARCHIBALD BOROUGH.
The time of filing the petition required by the Act of Feb. 16, 1883, is only 'directory, and a failure to comply with the Act will not necessarily render'an •election of School Directors invalid.
Certiorari to the Quarter Sessions of Lackawanna County. No. 181 July Term, 1883.
The Court of Quarter Sessions made the following order: And now Feb. 17th, 1883, the petition referred to under the Act of Assembly of Feb. 16th, 1883, entitled, “A further supplement to the Act approved 14th day of May, A. D., 1874, entitled, ‘An Act to prescribe the manner in which the Court may divide boroughs into wards, and to provide for a ward representation upon School Boards in said borough,” having been filed; on motion the •Court ordered and directed that three School Directors be elected from each of the three wards of the Borough .of Archbald, and that the Directors for 1883 'be elected as follows: In the First ward two, one for two years and one for three years ; in the Second one for one year, one for two years, and one for three years, and in the Third ward one for one year, one for two years, and .one . for thr'ee -years, and that hereafter, one Director be elected annually from each ward to serve for three years. An application was made on Feb. 23,1883, to, show cause why the order granted should not lie revoked. On June 2,1883, the rule was discharged in the following opinion, per:
Hand, J.
It is impossible for us to know what facts existed in the mind of the Legislature in passing the bill. They may know facts sufficient to warrant a bill, or may direct the same as future acts. Strictly this law has been complied with. In a matter directory it was complied with partially before the Act was passed. The people acted on the order, and we cannot interfere now with their action. The rule is discharged.
A certiorari was taken, complaining of the action of the Court in granting the order and refusing to revoke the same.
S. B. Price, Esq., for plaintiffs in error,
argued that the Borough of Archbald was divided into wards by the Court of Quarter Sessions of Luzerne County on Dec. 6th, 1878. Archbald is situated in Lackawanna County, which was erected on Oct. 24, 1878. This act of Feb. 16,1883, provides in the proviso, that at the election to be held on the third Tuesday of Feb., 1883, the petition herein required, shall be at least 5 days before said election, and the petition was not presented 5 days before election, as required by the statute, and hence is void. There were four Directors duly elected, and acting at the time the order was ■made, whose terms did not expire in 1883. The order of the Court provides for the election of a board, which is not warranted by the Act of Feb. 16th, 1883.
F. W. Gunster, Esq., for defendants in error,
argued that on a certiorari the only question is whether the record shows that an error has been committed ; Ewing vs. Thompson, 43 Pa. 372. The proceedings to incorporate the Borough of Archbald were commenced in Luzerne County, but they were removed with the record to the proper Court of the new County, and duly confirmed. The petition could not have been presented 5 days before the election, because the Act was only passed 4 days before the election, and the law was substantially complied with, literal compliance being impossible. The Act expressly contemplates an election in 1883. There were 6 Directors acting at the time of the election. One had been legally elected, and five had been appointed to fill the vacancies caused by resignation and removal. The order to elect 8 Directors was, therefore, proper.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court below on the 10th of March, 1884, in the following opinion:
Per Curiam.
This certiorari brings up the record only. Much was urged in the argument that we are not able to find in the record. The Act of 16th of February 1883, (P. Laws 5) fairly enters into the case, and demands that construction be given to some of its provisions. As the election was held on the 20th of February, 1883, only four days after .the passage of the Act, it was impossible to give the five days notice contemplated. We do not think that this fact invalidates the election. The right to elect School Directors in pursuance of an order of the Court of Quarter Sessions was clear and positive. The order directing these School Directors to be elected on the 20th of February was actually made. The number of days specified in the Act are directory. Under the facts of the case it was not essentially necessary that the petition be presented, and the order be made five days before the election. We discover no fatal error in the record.
Judgment affirmed.