Beatty v. Hartwell

• Decision Date: 15 December 1927
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 477
• Citation: 217 Ala. 239,115 So. 164
• Parties: BEATTY v. HARTWELL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

115 So. 164

217 Ala. 239

BEATTY v. HARTWELL.

1 Div. 477

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 15, 1927

Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1928

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Saffold Berney, Judge.

Election contest instituted by Ashley H. Beatty against Harry T Hartwell. From a judgment dismissing the contest, contestant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Hogan &amp Mitchell, of Mobile, for appellant.

Lyons Chamberlain & Courtney, and Outlaw, Kilborn & Smith, all of Mobile, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

This is a proceeding to contest the election of Harry T. Hartwell to the office of commissioner of the city of Mobile. While there is a general averment in the contest that the said Hartwell was not eligible to said office at the time of the election the other specifications which detail the facts rely upon a violation of the Corrupt Practice Act as embodied in article 26 of chapter 19, vol. 1, of the Code of 1923. Counsel for contestant, in brief, insist, however, upon error only as to paragraph (a), the general charge of not being eligible, and paragraph (b), which is to the effect that the said Hartwell, or his committee, expended in said election an amount in excess of the maximum fixed by law.

The Corrupt Practice Act does not per se authorize a contest of the election as for a violation of any of the provisions of same, and the contestant must rely upon section 1884 of the Code of 1923, which authorizes a contest of this election upon the same grounds as would authorize a contest of the election of a probate judge. Section 545 of the Code of 1923 sets forth the grounds upon which the office of probate judge may be contested, and ground (2), the only one having any bearing upon this case, says: "When the person whose election is contested was not eligible thereto at the time of said election." This means when the person was incompetent or disqualified at the time of the election, and not when he became disqualified because of illegal or improper conduct in and about the election. Finklea v. Farish, 160 Ala. 230, 49 So. 366. In other words, a candidate may be eligible to the office the day of the election, but on that day may do some act in violation of the Corrupt Practice Act as would disqualify him from assuming or holding the office. True, section 587 of the Code provides that the conduct as set up in specification (b) shall constitute a violation of the act and shall disqualify the candidate for said office. But this does not mean that it rendered him not eligible as a candidate on the day of the election within the meaning of ground (2) in section 545 of the Code. We therefore hold that specification (b) failed to set up a ground for contest as provided by sections 1884 and 545 of the Code of 1923. If the contestee violated the Corrupt Practice Act so as to become disqualified under section 587, he should be removed by some method other than a contest of the election. Watters v. Lyons, 188 Ala. 526, 66 So. 436.

We think the general averment or specification (a) sets up a ground of contest of the election as provided by section 545 that is, that Hartwell was not eligible at the time of the election and that under section 1884 this election...