HAAGEN’S APPEAL, 294 Pa. 45 (1928)

143 A. 415

Haagen’s Appeal.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.May 7, 1928.
June 30, 1928.

Public officers — Township supervisors — Removal-Proceedings under Act of July 14, 1917, P. L. 840 — Security for costs.

1. A petition under the Act of July 14, 1917, P. L. 840, to remove a township supervisor for neglect of duty is not vitiated by the insertion therein of the names of the two other supervisors without the consent of the signers and without a new affidavit thereto, where it appears that only the respondent was removed, that the other two supervisors made no complaint, and that respondent was in no way harmed thereby.

2. In such a proceeding under the 192d section of the Act of 1917, no security need be entered, it is only under the 193d section of the act that security is required when the court appoints persons to examine the highways.

Argued May 7, 1928.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

Appeal, No. 136, Jan. T., 1928, from decree of Q. S. Union Co., Jan. T., 1927, No. 1, on petition of A. Ward Geyer et al., for removal of William I. Haagen as supervisor of Buffalo Township. Affirmed.

Petition under Act of July 14, 1917, P. L. 840, to remove township supervisor from office. Before POTTER, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Order of removal entered. Respondent appealed.

Page 46

Error assigned, inter alia, was order, quoting record.

Curtis C. Lesher, with him Frederic E. Bower, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE SCHAFFER, June 30, 1928:

Appellant was one of the supervisors of Buffalo Township, Union County. More than the requisite number of duly qualified citizens thereof presented their petition to the court below setting forth that he had refused and neglected to perform his duties in that he had failed to keep that portion of the township’s roads assigned to him in a safe and passable condition. This the court found to be the fact and removed him from office.

Two questions are raised; first, that the court cannot entertain such a petition without first requiring security to be entered for costs under section 193 of the Act of July 14, 1917, P. L. 840; and, second, the petition having been filed against appellant alone in the first instance, it was vitiated by the insertion therein of the names of the two other supervisors without the consent of the signers of the petition and without a new affidavit thereto.

On the second proposition, it is sufficient to say that only the appellant was removed from office, nothing was done so far as the other two supervisors are concerned. They are not complaining. The petition was regular as to appellant and he was in no way harmed or prejudiced by the insertion of the other two names.

As to the entry of security for costs, no such security was required, much less to be given before the court could entertain the petition. The proceeding was under the 192d section of the Act of July 14, 1917, P. L. 840, providing for the removal by the court of quarter sessions of township officers who refuse or neglect to perform their duties. Nothing is said in this section of the act about security for costs. In the 193d section, it is

Page 47

provided that if the complaint shall allege that the public roads are not maintained in accordance with law, the cour may appoint three persons to examine the highways and report their findings. “In all such cases the complainants shall first enter security in such sum as the court may fix to pay all costs.” Here the court did not appoint persons to examine the highways and therefore no bond was required. It may be added, however, that, before hearing, the court ordered security to be given, which was done.

The decree is affirmed at appellant’s cost.