Title: Lehman v. Tucker
Citation: 368 A.2d 670, 470 Pa. 362
Docket Number: N/A
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: January 28, 1977

470 Pa. 362 (1977) 368 A.2d 670 Lee A. LEHMAN, Appellant, v. Harry E. TUCKER. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 20, 1976. Decided January 28, 1977. *363 Edward G. Petrillo, Warren, for appellant. Philip F. Jacobus, Kane, for appellee. Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY and MANDERINO, JJ. O'BRIEN, Justice. On November 4, 1975, appellee, Harry E. Tucker, defeated appellant, Lee A. Lehman, the incumbent, for the office of Sheriff of Forest County. On January 16, 1976, appellant Lehman filed an action in quo warranto, challenging the right of appellee Tucker to hold the office of sheriff. The gravamen of appellant's complaint was that appellee did not meet the residency requirements for county *364 officers as set forth in the County Code,[1] and, therefore, appellant, as the incumbent, pursuant to Article 9, § 4, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, would remain in office until a successor could be both elected and "duly qualified." On February 19, 1976, appellee filed preliminary objections raising the defense that appellant lacked standing to maintain this action in quo warranto. On March 31, 1976, the court below sustained appellee's preliminary objections and dismissed the action in quo warranto. Appellant filed exceptions to this order, and on May 19, 1976, the court below entered its final order dismissing the action in quo warranto because appellant lacked standing to bring an action in quo warranto. This appeal followed. Appellant argues that he has the standing to maintain an action in quo warranto. We agree. The Act of June 14, 1836, P.L. 621, § 2, 12 P.S. § 2022, provides, inter alia: In Dorris v. Lloyd, (No. 2), 375 Pa. 481, 100 A.2d 599 (1953), this court, in defining the language "any person or persons desiring to prosecute the same," stated: As the court made clear, if a judgment in quo warranto would place that party in office, such person would possess the private interest distinct from that of the general public necessary to maintain the action. Our analysis must continue to determine whether appellant possesses such a distinct private right so as to allow the maintenance of this action in quo warranto. Article 9, § 4, of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides, inter alia: In Commonwealth v. Hanley, 9 Pa. 513, (1848), this court, in interpreting similar provisions of the 1838 Constitution, and the Act of July 2, 1839, stated: See also Commonwealth v. Wise, 216 Pa. 152, 65 A. 535 (1907). (Contrary result because of the factual situation of three incumbents seeking to retain one seat on a three-man board of county commissioners.) The plain meaning of Article 9, § 4, dictates that an incumbent remain in one of the enumerated county offices until a successor is both validly elected and "duly qualified." We are of the opinion that an incumbent county officer, as defined by Article 9, § 4, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, serves until a successor is both validly elected and duly qualified. This action in quo warranto, if successful, would allow appellant to continue in office until a duly qualified successor is chosen. Therefore, he *368 possesses the private interest necessary to maintain this action in quo warranto. See Dorris v. Lloyd, supra. We do not pass judgment on the merits of appellant's action in quo warranto, but only decide that he is a proper moving party. Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County is reversed and the record is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. NIX, C.J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. [1] "§ 413. Qualifications of elected county officers No person shall be elected to any county office, except the office of district attorney otherwise provided for by this act, unless he shall be at least eighteen years of age, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county, and shall have resided within the county for one year next preceding his election. 1966, Aug. 9, P.L. 323, § 413, added 1963, July 10, P.L. 232, No. 129, § 1, as amended 1972, June 16, P.L. 468, No. 149, § 1." (Emphasis supplied.)