Commonwealth v. Johnson

a mandamus roads, to compel drawn^ upon them by justices of the peace Under the direction of an act °f assembly,

TtA WLE obtained a rule upon the defendants, who were supervisors of the roads in the township of the northern, liberties, to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding them to pay two orders drawn upon them by Frederick Wolbert and others justices of the peace, in favour of Robert Brooke and Jacob Kessler. J Upon the return of the rule, a variety of facts were laid before the court, which it is not material to detail, as they did not bear upon the particular question hereafter noticed, namely, the authority of the court to issue a mandamus in the present case. So far as they related to this point, the facts were these: By an act of the general assembly passed the 17th April 1795, 3 St. Lazvs 1722, the governor was authorized to appoint three surveyors, to survey and regulate the streets &c. in the Northern Liberties, within specified boundaries; and the third section of the law enacted, in the following terms, “ that the justices of the peace in the township of the Northern “ Liberties, shall be authorized to draw orders on the super- “ visor or supervisors of the roads for the said township, for “ the pay and incidental expenses of the said surveyors, who “ are hereby enjoined, and required to pay the amount of “ such orders, and the same shall be allowed to the said “ supervisors in the settlement of their accounts.” Brooke and Kessler were" two of the surveyors appointed by the governor; and on the 6th of May 1809, an order for six hundred and thirty-four dollars and fifty-two cents was drawn on the supervisors by twelve justices, in favour of Mr. Brooke, for services rendered by him under the said act, and in favour of Mr. Kessler oh the same account for one hundred and six dollars thirty-seven cents. These orders were presented to the defendants, who refused payment. A number of objections were made to the legality of the orders, upon the ground of a supposed irregularity on the part of the surveyors and justices in carrying the law into effect, and also because the entire number of justices in the township, thirteen, had not signed them. But supposing the orders to be legal, still,