*1 Mоtor Shirks alleged by all the reasons which were Freight Motor and Interstate Corporation Express at and appeals similar System, Inc., Term, May No. 25 Term, 1953 and at May No. at heard us three were appeals respectively. no makes argument appellant This sitting. the same from those presented differs contention which and Inter- us in the Shirks companion considered day and order which were this state cases, opinion the decree stated those cases, filed. For reasons cost of appellant. affirmed court below is (No. 1). Lloyd Dorris, Appellant, *2 1953. Before Argued September 30, C. J., Stern, Mtjsmanno Chidsey, Stearns, Jonеs, Bell, JJ. Arnold,
James Lenahan Mm Joseph with V. Brown, Kasper, for appellant.
R. him Lawrence County Coughlin, Solicitor, Donald S. Assistant Mills, County for Solicitor, ap pellees. by Mr. Chief Justice Horace Stern,
November 1953: 24,
The court belоw correctly decided that plaintiff had no legal to institute standing these proceedings.
The action is one of mandamus. Dr. Plaintiff, John L. filed a complaint his capacity as Chairman County of the Democrаtic but averred Party, that he was proceeding also on behalf of the Democratic who ran candidates for office on the Democratic ticket and on behalf National, State for offiсe aspire will candidates who Democratic and Local, State in ticket on the Democratic party Democratic and on behalf of and by Com- County The defendants are Luzerne Regis- County aсting Luzerne missioners of Elections Board of as the tration Commission and of Luzerne County. that defendants
In avers substance perform refused to wilfully neglected especially them more imposed upon law, P.L. 1333, those the Act of June provided elec- Art. Sec. 302 as follows: “To instruct (g) Ill, calling together tion officers their them duties, meeting inspect whenever deemed advisable, *3 and the conduct of systematically primаries thoroughly and elections the several election districts of the county to end that and elections be primaries may and conducted.” And honestly, efficiently, uniformly “To (i): investigate and frauds, irregularities violаtions this act, report all suspicious circumstances to the district attorney.”
The complaint detailed some instances alleged which defendants did not perform these duties, it prayed that they be cоmmanded to abide with the comply laws of the State of Pennsylvania and to carry out investiga- inspection, tion and report set forth in the portions of the act above quoted. Defendants moved to strike off the complaint, the court, this treating motion as in the nature of preliminary objections, entered judg- ment in favor of the defendants, which order plaintiff now appeals.
The Mandamus Act of June
P.L.
8, 1893,
Sectiоn
provides
that “The writ of mandamus may
issue upon the application of any person beneficially
writ
Section 4
“When the
provides
interested.”
procure
public duty,
the enforcement
sought
proseсuted
shall be
name
proceeding
Attorney
Commonwealth on
relation
General: Provided
That said
however,
proceeding
on
cases
the relation of the district
proper
shall be
attorney
county:
. . .”
proper
it
been
Even before the
act
had
passage
held that
are to be sub-
uniformly
public
when
rights
served
for
public officers
ordinarily, apply
may,
and that
so
a
cannot do
writ,
private individual
сan
unless he
or
particular
right
show some
privilege
his own
of that
common with
independent
held
the public at
v.
ex
large:
The Commomoealth
Heffner
rel.
28 Pa.
ex
Snyder
Commonwealth
rel.
Kline,
108;
v.
Mitchell,
Pa. 343. Since
thе act
passage
there
been
numerous
authorities
holding
same effect, namely
where the
of an officer
that,
under a statute is
can
be enforced
public one,
only at the suit of the attorney
оr the district
attorney of the
or
proper county
private citizen
who has a specific and independent
legal
right
interest
himself different
from that of the large or who has
an injury special
suffered
pеculiar
Stegmaier
himself:
203 Pa.
Jones,
52 A.
Davidson v. Beaver
Falls
Council,
2d
A.
505; Kulp v.
Inspectors
Board of
*4
Berks County
102 Pa.
Ct.
Prison,
Superior
310,
A.
Butcher v.
Philadelphia Civil Service Com
mission,
Superior Ct.
61 A. 2d
It
343,
367.
is
to
necessary
entitle a
toо,
private citizen
to
a public
enforce
that
duty,
his interest or his injury
be different not
merely
but
degree
also
kind and
nature from that of the general public: Commonwealth
ex rel. The Attorney General v. Mathues,
It does here any griev- capacity representative had in his or vidual any right that would to assert to be redressed ance large public in Luzerne common to not be system- inspect alleged to defendants fаilure of primaries and thoroughly atically the conduct and investigate is some- frauds elections county good government thing that affects nothing citizenry. There is of all the welfare peculiarly there- affected that more is show any injury has than others or that he suffered public. general different kind that why complaint in are these There other reasons compel fail. lies must Mandamus performance by ministerial officer undoubtedly while there are some and, imposed by upon county law boards of election purely gravely it is whether are doubtful ministerial, inspection primaries elec- of the conduct of investigаtion tions and of election frauds do not range involve exercise of a broad of discretion performance. manner and extent of their More- objection granting a fatal over, of the relief sought here the fact as stated in 55 that, C.J.S., ordinary §66: “The office of the writ of performance single mandamus is to coerce the acts specific imperative duty, ordinarily . . .; compel approрriate remedy an is not long course of official conduct or a series of continuous performed varying to be acts, under .. .”. conditions, To this there is added 34 Am. §74: Jur. “It is plain require that where the court is asked to adopt defendant to although a course of official action, required by imposed upon it is a course statute and necessary the official it would be law, for the court supervise, generally, his official conduct, and to
479 has, he instances whether in numerous determine mandate of power, the carried out of his the extent the court a effect render It the court. would body operation supervising managerial as to the per activity the writ and conduct to which keep open time for an indefinite and so the case tains, performance superintend the continuous the duties Accordingly, by respondent. issue the writ will not compel performance of a of acts series judicial compel performance . nor of other . officer;. nature.” That acts of a continuous mandamus will comрel pursuance not lie to course of performance official conduct and continuous generally Murphey held: v. duties has been Brock, Ga. 55 S.E. 2d Diamond Match 564; Co. 16 N.W. State ex rel. Powers, 314; Mich, 145, Hawes v. 39 Wash. 80 P. Sheriff, Brewer, People Mayor, ex rel. Bartlett v. 219 Ill. Dunne, 570. It is that to 76 N.E. obvious mandamus these perform the defendants to duties of their office which complaint are set forth in the would be to make the supervisor continuing good court a of not ability they faith but also with Avhich Avillhere perform after of their for office, is to be contemplate noted does not an upon past them to act reference to sоme event, but rather behave themselves future. That, proper function course, mandamus. judgment is affirmed. The
Dissenting Me. Justice Musmanno: strength Republic, the American the durabil- glory ity institutions, freedom-dedicated its enlightened and the assurance of its achievements its *6 mostly happy prosperous, stem
ever-progressive, future, system government. party genius of of its two from the people their long hands, it within the So as popular suffrage through fulcrum of the the of over lever party sovereignty, and an- out of office to turn one usurpation always present danger of of the other in, arrogant tyrannical oppression, power, indifference crystallize reality. duty into will never Republican Parties the and Democratic The vote-seeking organiza- simply are not United States they are official bodies horn of the Constitution tions; party of each the of the land. The оfficials law through processes positions the same of obtain their popular legis- control the of selection which judges. plaintiff in this The executives lators, L. is the chairman Dr. John case, Party County by Luzernе Democratic virtue of county vote of Democratic electors. As chairman of Party responsibilities, the Democratic he has serious vigilant eye one of is to maintain an which ever on oрposition party. of the activities The chairman- of Republican Party, has the same- re- course, sponsibilities against opposition party. as its agree majority do not with the
I, therefore, plaintiff particular that the does not have a interest subject litigation apart in matter of this generally public. duly that entertained political party elected chairman of a has not proper dischаrge an interest of their by government functions but he officials, has a protest, open in such manner as protest, is him against any misconduct or assumed misconduct on the part government officials. All that desires and opportunity asks for in case an this is present presentation his facts Court. If his does prima not make out a facie his case, will be comports it But I not that dismissed. do believe government to close the doors our scheme assumption his interest Court in face on his simply private public. is
In v. Yiddisher Kultur Far the case Sherman expounded length my views band, 108, 117, I pro rights legal on the of American to initiate citizens involving security ceedings in matters the Nation. principle applicable ap here insofar The same pertains to the welfare morning opens Court Crier this Court
Each by proclaiming: “All manner of session men who *7 by recognizance or otherwise stand bound have tо do Supreme the Justices Court honorable, before day Pennsylvania, may appear here holden this now they (Emphasis supplied) shall be heard.” I hear would these he be heard court below. Appellant, (No. Lloyd 2).