Opinion ID: 2260133
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeal from the Preliminary Injunction

Text: In Hales and Palazzo v. Township of Chester, Spykerman, Pisarek, Slavin, Walton, Stapleton and Phillips, the appellants appeal to this Court from a temporary restraining order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County issued on February 26, 1980. On February 8, 1980, Hales and Palazzo filed both a quo warranto and an equity action in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County against the Township of Chester, Spykerman, Pisarek, Slavin, Walton, Stapleton and Phillips. In conjunction with the equity action, they filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order. The complaints, identical in both actions, concern Hales' and Palazzo's assertion that Slavin, Walton, Stapleton and Phillips were not properly elected to their respective positions. Appellees requested that Slavin, Walton, Stapleton and Phillips be removed from their respective offices and restrained from acting in their official capacities until such time as the Court removes them from their office in an action in quo warranto. The Order of February 26, 1980 restrained appellants Slavin, Walton and Stapleton from acting in their official capacities. [11] The Order, in addition, restrained Spykerman and Pisarek from acting in any official capacity with appellants and also enjoined them in their capacity as Vacancy Board members. The Order does not enjoin Spykerman and Pisarek from otherwise performing their duties as supervisors. Appellants argue that the Common Pleas Court improperly restrained public officials from acting in their official capacity. They contend that the remedy of quo warranto, and not an injunction, is the appropriate procedure to try title to public office. Further, they point out that quo warranto does not permit an interim relief which would result in prohibiting the official from acting pending the final outcome. Although this Court in no respect condones the alleged activities of the appellants, we agree that the complaint in equity was improperly entertained and that the issuance of the preliminary injunction was improper. Historically, Pennsylvania courts have held that the quo warranto action is the sole and exclusive method to try title or right to public office. [12] Comment, Quo Warranto in Pa., 80 Dick.L.Rev. 218, 221 (1976). Title cannot be tested by mandamus, Commonwealth v. James, 214 Pa. 319, 63 A. 743 (1906); injunction, Eddy v. Ashley Borough, 281 Pa. 4, 125 A. 308 (1924), or any other proceeding that is provided for by the common law, Brinton v. Kerr, 320 Pa. 62, 63-64, 181 A. 569, 570 (1935). A quo warranto is addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted, rather than to correct what has already been done under the authority. State Dental Council & Exm. Bd. v. Pollock, 457 Pa. 264, 318 A.2d 910 (1974); Johnson v. Manhattan R.R. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 53 S.Ct. 721, 77 L.Ed. 1331 (1933). The gravamen of the complaint is the right to hold and exercise the powers of the office in contradistinction to an attack upon the propriety of the acts performed while in office. In Carrol Twp. Sch. Bd. Vacancy, 407 Pa. 156, 157-58, 180 A.2d 16, 17 (1962), this Court explained the rationale for the exclusive nature of the quo warranto remedy: Quo warranto is the Gibraltar of stability in government tenure. Once a person is duly elected or duly appointed to public office, the continuity of his services may not be interrupted and the uniform working of the governmental machinery disorganized or disturbed by any proceeding less than a formal challenge to the office by that action which is now venerable with age, reinforced by countless precedent, and proved to be protective of all parties involved in a given controversy, namely, quo warranto. A quo warranto action must be brought to oust de jure, as well as de facto officers from their public positions. A de facto officer is a person in possession of an office and discharging its duties under the color of authority, -that is, authority derived from an election or appointment however irregular or informal, so that the incumbent be not a mere volunteer. Pleasant Hills Boro. v. Jefferson Twp., 359 Pa. 509, 512-13, 59 A.2d 697, 699 (1948). Generally, quo warranto can be instituted only by the Attorney General or by the District Attorney. Mayer v. Hemphill, 411 Pa. 1, 6, 190 A.2d 444, 446 (1963). A private person may not bring a quo warranto action to redress a public wrong when he has no individual grievance. McLaughlin v. Cluley, 56 Pa. 270 (1867). If a private person has a special right or interest, as distinguished from the right or interest of the public generally, or he has been specially damaged, he may have standing to bring a quo warranto action. Brinton v. Kerr, supra ; Schermer v. Franek, 311 Pa. 341, 166 A. 878 (1933). In the complaints accompanying both the quo warranto and the equity actions, appellees challenged the appellants' right to hold office and to exercise the powers of their office. Appellees alleged that appellants Spykerman and Pisarek acted contrary to township laws in the election of Slavin, Walton, Stapleton and Phillips. In fact, the Common Pleas Court did determine that appellants Spykerman and Pisarek acted in bad faith, in violation of their public duty, and contrary to the spirit of the law in the election of Slavin, Stapleton, Walton and Phillips. Based upon this finding, the Court enjoined Slavin, Walton and Stapleton from acting in their official capacities and enjoined Pisarek and Spykerman from acting in any official capacity with Slavin, Walton and Stapleton. The Court also restrained Pisarek and Spykerman from acting in their capacity as Vacancy Board members. Regardless of the fact that these public officials may have obtained their public office by irregular means, these officials are not mere volunteers, and are thus clothed with color of title. Pleasant Hills v. Jefferson Twp., supra. We have consistently recognized that the continuity of these de facto officers' services may not be interrupted in any proceeding other than a quo warranto. We have stated that: Recognizing that an unlimited right to question collaterally the title to office would impede the orderly operation of government, we have ruled that the official acts of one who acts under the color of title to an office should be given the same effect as those of a de jure official. From an early date the appellate courts of this Commonwealth have held steadily to the rule that `the acts of public officers de facto, coming in by color of title, [whether or not entitled de jure ], are good so far as respects the public, but void when for their own benefit; and it is equally well settled that attacks upon the right of such incumbents to serve, must be made by the Commonwealth, in a direct proceeding for that purpose and cannot be made collaterally': Com. ex rel. v. Snyder, 294 Pa. 555, 559. Commonwealth ex rel. Palermo v. Pittsburgh, 339 Pa. 173, 177, 13 A.2d 24, 26 (1940). St. Dental Exam. Bd. v. Pollock, 457 Pa. 264, 267-68, 318 A.2d 910, 913 (1974). Moreover, in a case analogous to the instant appeal, we recognized that although public officials may have acted in bad faith, a quo warranto, and not an equitable remedy, is the appropriate means to try title to public office. In DeFranco v. Belardino, 448 Pa. 234, 292 A.2d 299 (1972), taxpayers of Bensalem Township instituted an equity action against the Township Supervisors in order to challenge the appointment of Supervisor Belardino by the other Township Supervisors. The source of the dispute concerned the activities at a Township meeting on May 13, 1970. At this meeting, the supervisors appointed James E. Stauring to fill the vacancy on the Board created by the death of Fred Zeigler, whose term would have expired in January 1974. The next morning, Belardino, whose term would have expired in January 1972, resigned from the Board and Albert Bader was appointed to the vacancy. At this same meeting, Stauring also resigned and Belardino was appointed to his vacancy. The end result of this maneuvering was an addition of two years to Belardino's term of office. After an evidentiary hearing, the Common Pleas Court sitting in equity entered a decree nisi in favor of the taxpayers. Subsequent exceptions were denied and the defendants appealed to this Court. On appeal, we stated that we did not approve of or condone the supervisors' obvious subterfuge, but unlike the Common Pleas Court, we failed to find that the facts of the case merited an equitable remedy. There have, however, been instances where alternative actions have been allowed to raise what would be traditionally classified as a quo warranto claim where the exigencies of the circumstances dictated. These were instances where the standing requirement of quo warranto would have precluded an issue of grave public concern from judicial scrutiny. See e.g., League of Women Voters v. L. Merion Bd. of Comm., 451 Pa. 26, 301 A.2d 797 (1973) (an equitable remedy was necessary where both the attorney general and the district attorney refused to institute a quo warranto proceeding); Specter v. Martin, 426 Pa. 102, 232 A.2d 729 (1967) (since the attorney general approved the district attorney's candidacy for mayor and it was inconceivable that district attorney would institute suit against himself in quo warranto, mandamus action was appropriate); and Chalfin v. Specter, 426 Pa. 464, 233 A.2d 562 (1967) (an equitable remedy should lie because unless the court now takes a position forthwith on Specter's status, if Specter is elected Mayor and thereafter declared ineligible, the majority of Philadelphia voters will be disenfranchised, thousands of campaign hours and money would be wasted, and the orderly administration of the city government will be paralyzed). Here the quo warranto issue is before the Court and the gravamen of the complaint is raised therein. Since the questions involved are before the Court under the traditionally accepted action, there is no reason to provide an alternative avenue for these considerations. Thus, it appears that the lower court abused its discretion in entertaining the separate equity action and in enjoining the public officials from acting in their official capacity pending the quo warranto determination. The injunction created its own exigent circumstances by crippling the daily operations of the government of Chester Township. The requirement that title to public office must be tried exclusively in a quo warranto proceeding originated in order to prevent exactly the type of harm created by this injunction. The order of February 26, 1980 of the Common Pleas Court of Delaware County is reversed, the injunction is dissolved and the equity action is dismissed. The court is ordered to proceed forthwith to dispose of the merits of the quo warranto complaint filed February 8, 1980. FLAHERTY, J., filed a concurring opinion. LARSEN, J., filed a concurring and dissenting opinion in which O'BRIEN, J., joined. LARSEN, concurring and dissenting. I concur in the majority's result in No. 173 Misc. Docket 1979, which dismissed the appellants' complaint in prohibition. However, I dissent from the majority's result and opinion in No. 236 Misc. Docket 1980, which provides that the appellants cannot be enjoined from acting in their official capacity. The appellants are elected officials of Chester Township whose right to hold office was questioned in a quo warranto proceeding filed on February 8, 1980. This action alleged that improper notice of the meeting of Township Supervisors at which they were elected, as well as a lack of a quorum, invalidated their election. On February 12, 1980, the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County granted an Injunction which restrained the appellants from acting in their official capacity pending the resolution of the quo warranto proceeding. On February 26, 1980, the Common Pleas Court ordered that the Injunction remain in effect. The appellants filed a notice of appeal to this Court and also requested an order staying the Injunction pending appeal. A Stay was granted by Mr. Justice Nix and Mr. Justice Kauffman on April 7, 1980. I would dismiss this appeal and dissolve the aforementioned Stay. The issue in this case is whether the Common Pleas Court can grant equitable relief which restrains the appellants (who are public officials) from acting in their official capacity, while a quo warranto action is pending which will or may remove them from office. While not condoning the alleged illegal activities of the appellants, the majority applies the exclusive remedy rule [1] which prohibits injunctive relief when the remedy of quo warranto is available. The traditional rationale for this rule was to foster the Gibraltar of stability in government tenure. In re Board of School Directors of Carroll Township, 407 Pa. 156, 180 A.2d 16 (1962). It can be argued that efficient governmental functioning would be impaired by enjoining the action of the officials, even though these officials are under attack in a quo warranto action. This rationale fails when applied to this case. The Common Pleas Court found that prior to the alleged usurpation by the appellants the business of the Township was conducted by compromise, (Supplemental Reproduced Record at 67a) and there was no serious impairment. Further, whatever danger may be present that Township business would be impaired if the injunction were affirmed would be outweighed by public outrage at seeing officials who allegedly seized power illegally conducting the Township business, and in derogation of the rights of the residents of the Feltonville section of Chester Township. [2] Furthermore, I would grant injunctive relief because the majority's result is not in accord with recent decisions of this Court. These decisions have developed what can be termed the exceptional circumstances doctrine, [3] which permits injunctive relief in exceptional circumstances, even where the remedy of quo warranto is available. The deviation from the exclusive remedy rule was first stated in Mayer v. Hemphill, 411 Pa. 1, 190 A.2d 444 (1963), wherein this Court held that the exclusive remedy rule did not apply in cases where exceptional circumstances existed. [4] The statement of the doctrine in Mayer was dictum, as the court assumed arguendo, that an equitable remedy was available concurrently with quo warranto but denied the relief on other grounds. However, this new doctrine was followed by this court in later decisions. Specter v. Martin, 426 Pa. 102, 232 A.2d 729 (1967) (Equitable relief was granted where the district attorney, the appropriate party to bring quo warranto, could not be expected to bring the action against himself); Chaflin v. Specter, 426 Pa. 464, 233 A.2d 562 (1967) (If equitable relief was not granted immediately a later quo warranto action might necessitate removal of a mayor, with the attendant political chaos); League of Women Voters v. Board of Commissioners, 451 Pa. 26, 301 A.2d 797 (1973) (The court enjoined a public official from acting in his official capacity even though the remedy of quo warranto was available because the attorney general and the district attorney refused to commence a quo warranto action-the exceptional circumstances); Cf: DeFranco v. Belardino, 448 Pa. 234, 292 A.2d 299 (1972) (The court did not find that the exceptional circumstances doctrine was applicable and denied equitable relief. While the circumstances were similar to the instant case, the shenanigans of the Township Supervisors in DeFranco did not rise to the level of blatant illegality as they do in the instant case). [5] The exceptional circumstances which make injunctive relief necessary in this case are the alleged blatant illegality of the actions of the appellants, the finding of the Common Pleas Court that the actions of the appellants threaten to continue (Supplemental Reproduced Record at 64a), and that these actions are directed at precluding the Feltonville residents from representation on the Chester Township Board of Supervisors. (Supplemental Reproduced Record at 65a). The spectre of arrogant disregard of legality by public officials which may lead to conflict between communities confronts us here and surely constitutes exceptional circumstances which are grounds for injunctive relief. The trauma which accompanied the Watergate tragedy has indicated the need for effective and efficient means for dealing with illegal official conduct. It is highly unlikely that the citizens of this nation would place a greater premium on continued governmental function than on immediately restraining the wrongdoing officials. The social conditions which attended the historical exclusive remedy rule are changed now, and case law which supports this rule has lost its value as precedent. The Gibraltar of stability in governmental tenure, the exclusive remedy rule, can no longer be the sole criteria for good government. Consequently, I would affirm the order of the Common Pleas Court. O'BRIEN, J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.