# Harrington v. Carroll

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 14, 1968 · 428 Pa. 510

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706761

## Case

- **Full name:** Harrington, Appellant, v. Carroll
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 14, 1968
- **Citations:** 428 Pa. 510; 239 A.2d 437; 1968 Pa. LEXIS 917
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cohen
- **Judges:** Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706761

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
I concur in the judgment reached by the majority but wish to add, in view of Justice Roberts’ concurring opinion, that the very court that created the Allen rule refused to apply the rule in Commonwealth ex rel. Needles v. Henszey, 81* Pa. 101 (1873), holding that an “undue election” of a member is to be determined by the councils and not by quo warranto. It said: “The defect if one, was known at and before the election, and an immediate trial might then have been had. The Commonwealth v. Allen et al., which was a case of forfeiture, has no application to the case before us. This was the specific remedy and quo warranto did not lie.”
If I were to find fault with or criticize the Allen rule, it would be because the court exercised its jurisdiction in a forfeiture case where the charter similarly provided “That council shall' be the' sole judge of the qualifications of its members.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706761. Public record. Not legal advice.