
    Mercer School District v. Cummins. Brown v. Harrisville Independent School District.
    A writ of error will not lie to a refusal of the court of quarter sessions, in an application under the Act of May 20,1857, to open a decreé creating an independent school district, there being no provision in that Act for a writ of error.
    A certiorari, taken two years after the entry of a decree establishing an independent school district, under the Act of May 8,1855, is too late and will be quashed.
    Oct. 17, 1888.
    Error and certiorari, Nos. 174 and 175, Oct. T. 1888, to Q. S. Butler Co., to review, 1, an order dismissing a petition to open a decree previously made for the erection of an independent school district, and, 2, the decree erecting the school district, at March S. 1885, No. 5.
    These two cases were argued together. On May 14, 1885, L. B. Cummins and more than twenty other taxable inhabitants of Mercer township and Harrisville borough, Butler co., petitioned the court of quarter sessions to erect an independent school district. Commissioners were appointed and an order to view issued. On June 3, 1885, the commissioners filed their report, finding that the district prayed for was necessary. On June 6, the report was confirmed and, on September 21, a decree was made establishing the district, as prayed for. On Jan. 29, 1887, twenty and more citizens of Mercer township petitioned the court to open the decree and re-examine the matter upon its merits. A rule to show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be allowed was granted, and an answer filed. On May 7, 1887, exceptions to the original proceedings and decree were filed, alleging errors as in assignments of error 1-5, and a rule granted to show cause why they should not be set aside. On July 9, 1887, the court, Hazen, P. J., discharged both rules, for the reason that the petition did not allege that the township was cut up into single school districts, nor that a wealthier district was carved out from a poorer portion of the township to the prejudice of the rights and interests of the balance, the only grounds for opening a decree allowed by the Act of May 20, 1857, but merely stated that the petitioners were “affected injuriously ” by the decree, without saying in what manner; and, also, for the reason, that, the term at which the decree was entered having expired, the court had no further power either to open or amend it. See 6 Pa. O. C. E.
    On June 4,1888, Henry J. Brown and more than twenty other citizens of Mercer township filed a petition under the Act of May 20, 1857, again praying that the original decree should be opened, and the petitioners given an opportunity to be heard in the premises, and that, after a hearing and re-examination on the merits, the decree he reformed or amended as the evidence might justly require. The court, McMichael, J., dismissed this petition also, upon the grounds that the Act is retrospective and does not apply to cases where the school district was created after the Act Avas passed, and • also that the court had no power to open the decree after the expiration of the term. See 6 Pa. C. C. R.
    
      McJunkin & Galbraith, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Chas. McCandless, for defendants in error.
    
      The assignments of error, on the certiorari, specified the action of the court, 1, in confirming the report at the same term of court at which it was presented and filed; 2, 3, in confirming the report and making the decree in the absence of evidence on the face of the report that notice had been given of the time and place of meeting; 4, in the absence of a draft showing not only the lines of the new, or independent district, but also of the old district of Mercer township as it remained after carving from it a portion of the new; 5, in not refusing the decree for fatal defects, omissions, and irregularities apparent on the face of the record, even in the absence of objections and exceptions filed thereto; 6, in discharging the rule; 7, in not sustaining the exceptions; and 8, in not opening the decree.
    
      The assignments of error, under the writ of error, specified the action of the court, 1, in dismissing the petition of June 4, 1888 ; 2, refusing the prayer of the petition, and 3, holding that the Act of May 20, 1857, was only applicable to cases arising before its passage and not to the present case.
    Oct. 29, 1888.
   Per Curiam,

These writs must be quashed; the former, because a writ of error has not been allowed by the Act of Assembly in such case; the other because the certiorari was' not issued in time, that is, within the statutory period.^

Writs quashed. J. C. S.  