Meell Appeal
174 A.2d 110
Pa.
1961
Check Treatment

Meell Appeal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

October 10, 1961

Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN and ALPERN, JJ.

Argued October 3, 1961

nominated for the office. See Act of 1937, P. L. 1333, §922, as amended by tbe Act of May 6, 1943, P. L. 196, §1, 25 PS §2882 (Supp.). Tbe law does not permit tbe votes of tbe electorate to be changed or modified by any gentlemen‘s agreement between tbe candidates. This is not an action between tbe candidates involved but a proceeding in wbicb tbe public is involved, to canvass and compute the votes cast by tbe Republican electors for tbe office of burgess in this borough. Further, if Muska desired to withdraw from the election contest after final certification of his nomination, tbe Election Code specifically and clearly provides tbe necessary procedure for this to be effected and tbe manner for substitution. See Act of June 3, 1937, P. L. 1333, §978, as amended by tbe Act of May 6, 1943, P. L. 196, §1, 25 PS §2938 et seq. (Supp.).

Order affirmed. Costs to be paid by appellant.

Charles J. Hepburn, Jr., for appellant.

John W. Wellman, for appellee.

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE EAGEN, October 10, 1961:

The appellant, Arthur W. Meell and Helen W. Maxwell were candidates in the May 16, 1961, primary election for the Republican nomination for the office of tax collector in the Borough of Ridley Park, Delaware County, Pennsylvania.

Meell appeared before the county board of elections and challenged the validity of certain absentee ballots wherein a vote was cast for candidate Maxwell. The board overruled the challenges. An appeal from that decision to the court of common pleas was dismissed. A motion for a rehearing was denied. An appeal to this Court followed.

The appeal from the order of the election board to the court of common pleas was pursuant to the provisions of the Act of June 3, 1937, P. L. 1333, §1407, 25 PS §3157. This statute provides, “No appeal shall be allowed or granted from any order or decree of the court of common pleas made in pursuance of this section.”

The scope of review, therefore, in this Court is in the nature of narrow certiorari and the inquiry is limited to a determination of whether or not the court had jurisdiction; whether or not the proceedings were regular; whether or not the court exceeded its power and authority; and, whether or not there was a violation of constitutional rights. The question of the validity of ballots involved is not for us to say:

;
;
;
; and
.

The lower court undoubtedly had jurisdiction, no irregularities appear in the record of the proceedings, the court did not exceed its authority and there was no violation of constitutional rights.

Order affirmed. Costs to be paid by appellant.

CONCURRING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO:

I concur in the result announced by the majority of the Court. However, I desire to make this observation. Since elections go to the very heart of our system of democracy, I would not limit the scope of review of this Court in election contests, no matter what might be the nature of the controversy involved.