Adams v. Smith
| Decision Date | 31 May 1889 |
| Citation | 6 Dak. 94,50 N.W. 720 |
| Parties | Adams v. Smith et al. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Brown county; James Spencer, Judge.
Action, by leave of court, by John E. Adams against Fred B. Smith and others, county commissioners of Brown county, to contest an election to relocate the county-seat of said county. The court pro forma sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and ordered judgment pro forma for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
The complaint alleged that plaintiff was a qualified elector of Brown county, and that defendants were the duly qualified and acting commissioners of said county; that said county was, and for many years had been, a duly organized county; that under and by virtue of section 4 of chaper 21 of the Political Code of the territory the county-seat of said county was located and established at Columbia, and had remained at Columbia ever since its location there, under the provisions of section 6 of said chapter of the Political Code, by reason of the fact that no place received a majority of all the votes cast at the election held under the provisions of said section 6; that said county had a population of more than 12,000 people, as shown by the census of 1885, and had an area of not less than 48 congressional townships; that the counties of Brown and Cass were the only counties in the territory that had, respectively, more than 12,000 inhabitants, as shown by the census of 1885, and not less than 48 congressional townships each; that the county-seat of Cass county was located at Fargo in said county by a bill for an act defining the boundaries of Pembina county, and creating new counties, approved January 4, 1873; that on the 11th day of March, 1887, the territorial legislature passed an act entitled “An act to provide for the relocation of county-seats in counties where county-seats have been located by a vote less than a majority of all the electors voting thereon,” which act was approved March 11, 1887; that under and pursuant to the provisions of said act an election was held for the purpose of voting upon the question of relocating the county-seat of said Brown county, at which election a majority of the votes cast were in favor of relocating said county-seat at the city of Aberdeen in said county; that thereafter defendant commissioners met and opened the returns, and declared that a majority of the votes cast at said election were in favor of relocating said county-seat at Aberdeen, and thereupon declared the city of Aberdeen to be the county-seat of said county; that thereafter the county officers of said county removed their offices, and the records, books, papers, and property belonging to their respective offices and to said county, from Columbia to the city of Aberdeen; that said county of Brown was, and had been at the time of the passage of said act, the only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Hughes County
...v. David, 1 Iowa 23; Sewing Mach. Co. v. Moore, 2 Dak. 280, 8 N.W. 131; Feldenheimer v. Tressel, 6 Dak. 265, 43 N.W. 94; Adams v. Smith. 6 Dak. 94, 50 N.W. 720. Such directions by the appellate court are made in furtherance of justice, and to prevent any misunderstanding in the court below ......
-
Graff v. Burnside
...v. Petty, 85 N.W. 923. It also finds support by fair inference from the language of this court in Casserly v. Marshall, and Adams v. Smith, 6 Dak. 94, 50 N.W. 720. See, also, Myrick v. McCabe, 67 N.W. We therefore hold that in election contests under this statute appeal lies only from the f......
-
Greely v. McCoy
...our approval of the manner in which such discretion has already been exercised. In Sewing Mach. Co. v. Moore, 2 Dak. 280, and in Adams v. Smith, 6 Dak. 94, the territorial supreme court went further than we are asked to go, and in the first instance, on appeal from a decision on demurrer, d......
-
Greeley v. McCoy
...manner in which such discretion has already been exercised. In Sewing Mach. Co. v. Moore, 2 Dak. 280, 8 N. W. Rep. 131, and in Adams v. Smith, 6 Dak. 94, 50 N. W. Rep. 720, the territorial supreme court went further than we are asked to go, and in the first instance, on appeal from a decisi......