Court Opinion

ID: 9706761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:51:06.116373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:24.816040
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
I concur in the judgment reached by the majority but wish to add, in view of Justice Roberts’ concurring opinion, that the very court that created the Allen rule refused to apply the rule in Commonwealth ex rel. Needles v. Henszey, 81* Pa. 101 (1873), holding that an “undue election” of a member is to be determined by the councils and not by quo warranto. It said: “The defect if one, was known at and before the election, and an immediate trial might then have been had. The Commonwealth v. Allen et al., which was a case of forfeiture, has no application to the case before us. This was the specific remedy and quo warranto did not lie.”
If I were to find fault with or criticize the Allen rule, it would be because the court exercised its jurisdiction in a forfeiture case where the charter similarly provided “That council shall' be the' sole judge of the qualifications of its members.”