Opinion
November 27, 1928.
January 7, 1929.
Appeals — Statement of questions involved — Question not raised by pleadings — Opinion of Supreme Court — Unimportant answer to question not raised by pleadings.
1. Ordinarily, the Supreme Court will not consider a question not included in or suggested by the statement of questions involved.
2. Where the answer to a question not raised by the pleadings is not a matter of doubt or importance, ordinarily the Supreme Court will not discuss the point in its opinion.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
Appeal, No. 338, Jan. T., 1927, by defendants, from order of C. P. Northumberland Co., Sept. T., 1928, No. 484, awarding peremptory mandamus, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Edward Raker, district attorney, v. Frank B. Dressler et al., school directors of Coal Township School District. Affirmed.
Petition for mandamus. Before STROUSS, P. J. and LLOYD, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Mandamus awarded. Defendants appealed.
Error assigned, inter alia, was order, quoting record.
J. A. Welsh and W. H. Unger, with them Francis F. Reamer, Marlin S. Unger and S. L. Gribbin, for appellants.
Charles C. Lark, for appellee.
Argued November 27, 1928.
The school directors of Coal Township, Northumberland County, appeal from a judgment awarding a peremptory mandamus requiring them to approve the bond of the township treasurer, tendered to the school district as security for his proper accounting for the 1928 school taxes to be collected by him, and to deliver to him the duplicate and issue to him a warrant for their collection. Aside from the matters we have already decided in Com. ex rel. v. Snyder and Com. ex rel. v. Kline et al., in opinions filed herewith [see the two preceeding cases], the only point set forth in or suggested by the statements of questions involved (which limits those to be considered on appeal: Keck v. Vandyke, 292 Pa. 532) is whether the treasurer lost the right to collect the taxes by "failing to file his bond within the time required by law." This question was not raised by the pleadings, probably because, under the facts of the case, the necessary answer to it, antagonistic to appellants, was not a matter of doubt or importance, as in fact it was not. Under such circumstances we do not dignify an appeal with any further opinion.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.