Case Name: Foy's Case
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1909-04-12
Citations: 224 Pa. 358
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 191
Parties: Foy’s Case.
Judges: Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 224
Pages: 358–359

Head Matter:
Foy’s Case.
Election law — Primary election — Nomination—Exceptions—Rehearing — Record—Certiorari—Appeals.
On. an appeal from the refusal of the common pleas to grant a rehearing of an order sustaining exceptions to nomination for public office, the appellate court can pass only upon the regularity of the record, and if nothing appears from the record showing that the lower court erred or abused its discretion in refusing the rehearing its action will be affirmed.
Argued Feb. 15, 1909.
Appeal, No. 191, Jan. T., 1908, by P. C. Foy, from order of C. P. Schuylkill Co., March T., 1908, No. 180, refusing a rehearing of an order sustaining exceptions to the nomination of P. C. Foy to the office of school director of the Borough of Girardville.
Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
Affirmed.
Petition for rehearing of an order sustaining exceptions to nomination.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
Error assigned was order refusing a rehearing.
Wm. Wilhelm, with him E. J. Maginnis, for appellant.
William G. Devitt, for appellee.
April 12, 1909:

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.