Bays v. Bradley Mills
| Decision Date | 09 January 1953 |
| Parties | BAYS v. BRADLEY MILLS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Kelly Clore, Pineville, for appellant.
A. E. Funk, Jr., Middlesboro, for appellee.
The petition seeks a writ of mandamus against the respondent, County Judge of Bell County, to require the calling of a local option election in the City of Middlesboro.
A general demurrer challenges the petition on three grounds: (1) That there is no allegation of irreparable injury to the plaintiff who is one of the signers of the local option petition and sues here in behalf of himself and all other proponents of the election; (2) That there is no showing that the petitioner requested the calling of an election; and (3) That there is no allegation that the Bell County Court will be in regular session for the purpose of calling such an election if directed to do so by this Court.
So far as the first ground is concerned, it may be said that great and irreparable injury may always be presumed from the failure of an officer to perform a mandatory duty required of him by statute or otherwise. The statute confers upon the petitioners the right to require the calling of a local option election upon compliance with certain statutory requirements. It is a right which they enjoy as citizens and any action which deprives a citizen of his statutory right of suffrage amounts to great and irreparable injury.
Concerning the failure to specifically request the calling of the election at the regular October and November terms of the county court, it is pointed out that the petition which was filed specifically requested the calling of an election under the terms of the statute. The petition met the statutory requirements, and this Court would not read into the statute an additional provision requiring further steps on the part of the proponents of the election. It may be remarked that had the petitioners been more diligent in calling the matter to the attention of the respondent, the difficulty and expense of this proceeding might have been avoided. However, we cannot say that the failure to do so was fatal to their right to require the calling of an election.
The third ground of the demurrer is passed to the merits.
The petition for the election was filed on October 30, 1952, the regular October term of the county court being then in session. No action was taken at that term nor at the succeeding November term, which convened on November 3. At the December term which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metzger v. Summe, 2012-CA-001622-MR
...jurisdiction under Const. § 110 to correct his action. Franklin v. Pursiful, 295 Ky. 222, 173 S.W.2d 131, 133 (1943); Bays v. Bradley Mills, Ky., 254 S.W.2d 348 (1943). Coffey v. Anderson, 371 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Ky. 1963). 9. There are allegations of fraud in the petition. Two affidavits were......
-
Coffey v. Anderson
...jurisdiction under Const. § 110 to correct his action. Franklin v. Pursiful, 295 Ky. 222, 173 S.W.2d 131, 133 (1943); Bays v. Bradley Mills, Ky., 254 S.W.2d 348 (1943). However, in view of Hettich v. Colson, Ky., 366 S.W.2d 907 (1963), and Cunnigan v. Jones, Ky., 371 S.W.2d 624, decided tod......
-
Meredith v. Sears
...In local option cases, the act of the county judge in calling an election is categorized as ministerial. See Bays v. Bradly Mills, Ky., 254 S.W.2d 348; Howard v. Carty, Ky., 275 S.W.2d 68; Boyd v. Alexander, Ky., 284 S.W.2d 85. The action of a county court in calling an election on the ques......
-
B. & W. Corp. v. Zirkle
...local option election, because in such a case there is no adequate remedy at law. See Howard v. Carty, Ky., 275 S.W.2d 68; Bays v. Bradley Mills, Ky., 254 S.W.2d 348; Franklin v. Pursiful, 295 Ky. 222, 173 S.W.2d In Reeves v. Zirkle, Ky., 331 S.W.2d 723, an order of mandamus was sought to c......