TOWNSHIP OF FALLOWFIELD v. MARLBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, 1 U.S. 28 (1776)
U.S. Supreme Court
TOWNSHIP OF FALLOWFIELD v. MARLBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, 1 U.S. 28 (1776)1 U.S. 28 (Dall.)
Township of Fallowfield
v.
Township of Marlborough
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
April Term, 1776
On Certiorari to Chester, to remove an order and judgment of sessions, for the removal of James Heany.
Exceptions taken to the proceedings below. That it did not appear the pauper had been examined; nor was any reason set forth why he was not: That natural justice required he should be heard before he was removed. And the following cases were cited: 2 Salk. 488. to show the examination must be by two Justices. 2 Stra. 1092. S.P. And. 238. Sett.Cas. c.18.
But it was answered: 1st. That it was not necessary that the examination should appear on the face of the order. Justices are not obliged to set forth evidence, or-every little circumstance; that when nothing is set forth which appears to be wrong, the Court will make an intendment in favour of their order. An order to a common intent good. 1 Stra. 211. That it is not necessary to set forth the summons and examination of the part. 1 Stra. 474. 630. 211. 2nd. Lord Ray. 1406.
2nd. That even if it was necessary, there are words in the order equivalent, viz, on due consideration, which implies due examination 3 Burn. Sess. Cas. Also the words due proof. Also the words on the examination of Samuel Heany 'as otherwise.'
That in the cases from Salkeld, there appeared a defect of examination on the order, it having been taken by one Justice instead of two.
BY THE COURT. No case can be shown, where an order was deemed bad, because the examination did not appear on the face of the order.
Comb. 474. is a book of no great authority, and this case is contradicted by many others. We are of opinion that it is not necessary that an examination should appear on the face of the order; nor is it necessary that the examination of any person should be set forth. If any pauper was injured by a removal, the remedy might be [ Township of Fallowfield v. Marlborough Township 1 U.S. 28 (1776)
had here, on information; and, though it will not restore him, yet he might have complained to the sessions, where everything was open.
The order of Sessions confirmed, with costs.
U.S. Supreme Court
TOWNSHIP OF FALLOWFIELD v. MARLBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, 1 U.S. 28 (1776) 1 U.S. 28 (Dall.) Township of Fallowfieldv.
Township of Marlborough Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1776 On Certiorari to Chester, to remove an order and judgment of sessions, for the removal of James Heany. Exceptions taken to the proceedings below. That it did not appear the pauper had been examined; nor was any reason set forth why he was not: That natural justice required he should be heard before he was removed. And the following cases were cited: 2 Salk. 488. to show the examination must be by two Justices. 2 Stra. 1092. S.P. And. 238. Sett.Cas. c.18. But it was answered: 1st. That it was not necessary that the examination should appear on the face of the order. Justices are not obliged to set forth evidence, or-every little circumstance; that when nothing is set forth which appears to be wrong, the Court will make an intendment in favour of their order. An order to a common intent good. 1 Stra. 211. That it is not necessary to set forth the summons and examination of the part. 1 Stra. 474. 630. 211. 2nd. Lord Ray. 1406. 2nd. That even if it was necessary, there are words in the order equivalent, viz, on due consideration, which implies due examination 3 Burn. Sess. Cas. Also the words due proof. Also the words on the examination of Samuel Heany 'as otherwise.' That in the cases from Salkeld, there appeared a defect of examination on the order, it having been taken by one Justice instead of two. BY THE COURT. No case can be shown, where an order was deemed bad, because the examination did not appear on the face of the order. Comb. 474. is a book of no great authority, and this case is contradicted by many others. We are of opinion that it is not necessary that an examination should appear on the face of the order; nor is it necessary that the examination of any person should be set forth. If any pauper was injured by a removal, the remedy might be [ Township of Fallowfield v. Marlborough Township 1 U.S. 28 (1776) had here, on information; and, though it will not restore him, yet he might have complained to the sessions, where everything was open. The order of Sessions confirmed, with costs.
