Case Name: Girard Clarification Petition
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1966-12-06
Citations: 423 Pa. 297
Docket Number: Appeals, Nos. 167, 168, 175 to 180, 202, and 203; Appeals, Nos. 109 to 121
Parties: Girard Clarification Petition.
Judges: Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 423
Pages: 297–315

Head Matter:
Girard Clarification Petition.
Submitted September 21, 1966.
Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.
Arthur Littleton, John Russell, Jr., Ernest R. Yon 8taróle, Richard P. Brown, Jr., Gaffney & Gaffney, and Morgan, Lewis & Bocldus, for petitioners.
Edward Friedman, Attorney General, for Commonwealth, respondent.
Edward G. Bauer, Jr., City Solicitor, and Levy Anderson, First Deputy City Solicitor, for City of Philadelphia, respondent.
December 6, 1966:
William T. Coleman, Jr., Charles J. Biddle, and Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Kohn & Bilks, and Drinker, Biddle & Reath, for individual appellants and respondents.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Me. Justice Roberts,
Tbe sole issue before this Court is whether we should entertain a petition for clarification of two opinions rendered by this Court in the Girard College Trusteeship, 391 Pa. 434, 138 A. 2d 844 (1958), and Girard Will Case, 386 Pa. 548, 127 A. 2d 287 (1956), eight and ten years ago respectively. Only two members of the present Court participated in the first Girard decision, and three, in the second.
Significantly the district court refused to abstain from deciding the state issues involved in this controversy. Commonwealth v. Brown et al., Trustees of the Estate of Stephen Girard, 260 F. Supp. 323 (E.D. Pa. 1966). Due regard for the proper administration of our federal-state system of dual judicial tribunals suggests that it would be highly inappropriate for this Court to entertain the petition for clarification, since the district court's decision is currently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
It should be emphasized, however, that the determination by this Court not to entertain the petition in no way implies a view on the merits of any issue in the controversy presently before the federal courts.
The petition for clarification is therefore denied.