Opinion
April 22, 1957.
Appeals — Costs — Township election contest — Order of Supreme Court — Interpretation.
Where it appeared that in dismissing an election contest the court below specifically held that the complaint was not without probable cause and directed that the costs be paid by the municipalities involved; that upon an appeal to the Supreme Court, it affirmed the order of the court below and directed "costs to be paid as ordered by the court below", it was Held that the intent of this order was that the court below should, by supplemental order, charge the appeal costs to the municipalities the same as it had done with the costs below.
Submitted March 22, 1957. Before JONES, C. J., BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD, JONES and COHEN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 265, Jan. T., 1957; case certified to Supreme Court by Superior Court, Appeal, No. 19, Feb. T., 1957, on appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, No. 1478, Dec. T., 1953. Order of court of common pleas reversed.
Same case in Superior Ct.: 183 Pa. Super. 116.
Proceeding upon petition of successful candidate for office of township tax collector and rule to show cause why contestant should not pay costs of appeal in Supreme Court.
Order entered making rule absolute, before VALENTINE, P. J., LEWIS and PINOLA, JJ., opinion by VALENTINE, P. J. Contestant appealed to the Superior Court, which certified the case to the Supreme Court.
James Lenahan Brown, for appellant.
Paul R. Selecky, for appellee.
This matter is before us upon a certification by the Superior Court under Section 10 of the Act of June 24, 1895, P. L. 212, 17 Pa.C.S.A. § 197. All of the members of that court were of the opinion that the question presented should be decided by this court since it involves an interpretation of our own order with respect to the imposition of the costs when the proceeding was before us on the merits upon an earlier appeal. The accompanying opinion filed by the Superior Court in obedience to the Act of 1895, supra, indicates that the court was divided four to three on the issue involved. Our own view coincides with the conclusion of the majority as expressed by Judge WRIGHT in the opinion for the court: see 183 Pa. Super. 116, 130 A.2d 216. The intent of our order of March 15, 1956, on the former appeal to this court (see 384 Pa. 474, 480, 121 A.2d 141) was that the court below should, by supplemental order, charge the appeal costs to the municipalities the same as it had done with the costs below. Accordingly, we make the following order on the instant appeal.
The order of the court below is reversed and the record remanded with directions that an order be entered discharging the rule and charging the costs of $279.66 on the former appeal to this court as well as the costs on the present appeal to the municipalities concerned as was done by the lower court's supplemental order of May 23, 1955, with respect to the costs in the court below.