Case Name: Gutwald's Petition
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1885-11-02
Citations: 1 Sadler 191
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gutwald’s Petition.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; being those cases not designated to be reportedÉ
Volume: 1
Pages: 191–192

Head Matter:
Gutwald’s Petition.
The act of May 1, 1861, to divide the borough of Ebensburg into two wards, granted no powers and prescribed no duties in regard to the election of school directors. That subject is controlled for the borough by the act of May 14, 1874, and the supplement of February 15, 1883, giving the quarter sessions of the county the right to determine the number of school directors to be elected in each ward.
(Decided November 2, 1885.)
Appeal from and certiorari to the Quarter Sessions of Cambria County decreeing election of ward directors.
Affirmed.
The borough of Ebensburg was incorporated by the act of assembly, January 15, 1825. The act of incorporation being prior to the adoption of the common-school system, of course no provision for the election of directors was made.
On March 9, 1857, by decree of the court of quarter sessions upon petition of the proper authorities, the borough was made subject to the general borough law approved the 3d day of April, 1851. The act of 1851 provides for the election of six school directors in such boroughs as may be brought within its provisions.
By an act of assembly, May 1, 1861, the borough of Ebensburg was divided into two wards, the act providing that “the borough should be and remain a separate school district, as if the act had not passed.”
The act of May 14, 1874, prescribes the mode of dividing boroughs into wards, and directs that, in decreeing a division, the court shall direct an election of an equal number of directors from each ward.
The act of February 16, 1883 (P. L. 5), supplementary and amendatory to the act of May 14, 1874, provides that, “from and after such division into wards, or where such division has heretofore been made, each ward shall elect . . . not less than one nor more than three school directors, as shall be determined by the court of quarter sessions of the said county, decreeing such division.”
Under the impression that the quarter sessions of Cambria county had the power to direct the election of an equal number f directors in each ward in the borough of Ebensburg, Joseph Gutwald; burgess, presented his petition praying such decree to be made. The court on January 6, 1885, entered a decree directing that each ward should elect one school director. From this decree the appellant appealed; and this court issued a certiorari to bring up the proceedings.
W. Horace Rose and Alvin Evans for appellant.
Wm. H. Sechler-and M. D. Kittell for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Paxson :
It is not denied that the borough of Ebensburg is subject to the general borough law of April 3, 1851. Section 26 of said act fixed the number of school directors in a borough at six, and directed that they should be elected under the provision of the laws regulating common schools.
They were so elected upon a general ticket until the decree of the court below, made in January last, that each ward in said borough should elect one school director. This action of the court was clearly warranted by the act of May 14, 1874 (P. L. 159), and its supplement of February 16, 1883 (P. L. 5), unless there is some other controlling legislation.
It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff in error, that the act of May 1, 1861, entitled "An Act to Divide the Borough of Ebensburg, in the County of Cambria, into Two Wards" was such legislation; that said act was local and special and, under all the authorities, was not repealed by the general act of 1874, and its supplement of 1883.
The object of the act of 1861 was merely to divide the borough into two wards. It granted no powers and prescribed no duties in regard to the election of school directors; all this was regulated at the time by general law; all that the act of 1861 did, was to declare that its passage should not disturb these matters ; they should remain as heretofore.
We are clearly of opinion that the borough comes within the act of 1874 and its supplements. It follows that the learned judge below committed no error in making the order of January 6, 1885, and the said order is affirmed.