Case Name: James F. Mundy v. E. L. Myers, et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1916-10-25
Citations: 255 Pa. 282
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 267
Parties: James F. Mundy v. E. L. Myers, et al., Appellants.
Judges: Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker and Walling, JJ. Affirmed.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 255
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
James F. Mundy v. E. L. Myers, et al., Appellants.
Argued Sept. 27,1916.
Appeal, No. 267, Jan. T., 1916, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1916, No. 472, awarding mandamus in case of James F. Mundy v. E. L. Myers, Richard A. Ward, J. C. Bell, Dr. Dodson, Percy A. Brown, A. E. Burnaford, Mary L. Trescott, William. Steinhauer and H. W. Saums, School Directors of the City of Wilkes-Barre.
Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker and Walling, JJ. Affirmed.
Petition for mandamus.
Before Woodward, J.
The facts appear in Commonwealth v. Gritman, 255 Pa. 277.
The relator demurred to the defendant’s answer. The court sustained the demurrer and awarded a peremptory mandamus. Defendants appealed.
The second question in appellants’ statement of questions involved was as to the proper remedy to be invoked by the relator, quo warranto or mandamus.
Error assigned was the order of the court.
John H. Dando, with him Wrn. Brewster, for appellants. ,
John T. Lenahan, with him Richard B. Sheridan and Charles F. McHugh, for appellee.
October 25, 1916:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
When this case was called for argument counsel for appellants stated they would waive the second question in their statement of questions involved. The first question was this day decided adversely to the appellants in Commonwealth, ex rel., Hughes, v. Gritman, et al., 255 Pa. 277, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.