Ex parte Shepherd
Decision Date | 18 May 1911 |
Parties | EX PARTE SHEPHERD. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Mandamus by J. W. Shepherd to compel the circuit judge of the Fourteenth circuit to dismiss an election contest petition. Writ denied.
Bankhead & Bankhead and E. R. Lacy, for petitioner.
W. C Davis, R. A. Cooner, and O. D. Street, for respondent.
This is an original petition in this court for a writ of mandamus to the judge of the Fourteenth circuit. Petitioner shows that at the general election held November 8, 1910, he was duly elected judge of the probate court of Walker county; that Charles M. Sartain, an opposing candidate at that election had filed what purported to be a contest in the circuit court; that petitioner had moved the court to dismiss the contest because it was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court; and that his motion had been overruled. Petitioner prays an alternative writ of mandamus or rule nisi commanding the circuit judge to show cause why the contest should not be dismissed. The circuit judge waives alternative writ or rule nisi, and defends.
The contest filed in the circuit court avers "that the returns of said election for said office as made out and certified to by the inspectors in the several precincts in said county, and by them delivered to the returning officers for the several precincts, showed the election of the said Charles M. Sartain to said office by nineteen (19) votes majority, but that, after the said returns were delivered to the several returning officers, those for four (4) precincts were unlawfully and illegally changed and altered by some person or persons unknown to the contestant, whereby it was made to appear that the said James W. Shepherd had received a majority of twenty-six (26) votes for said office." The statement of grounds of contest set forth the details of the changes alleged to have been made in each of the four precincts. It then averred "that the said Charles M Sartain was in fact elected at said election to said office; that the legal votes ascertained to have been given to him by the inspectors of said election in the several precincts at said election exceeded the legal votes given to the said James W. Shepherd for said office; that on the Friday next after the said election, at the time and place fixed by law, the board of supervisors, namely, J. O. Long, R. A. O'Rear, and Hewitt Myers, did make a statement of votes from the several precincts of the county of the whole number of votes given for the said Charles M. Sartain for said office, but that in making said statement they received and adopted the changed and altered returns as above set out, instead of adopting the true and correct returns from the several precincts, and thereby made it appear that the said James W. Shepherd, and not the contestant, the said Charles M. Sartain, was elected to said office."
One ground of the motion to dismiss the contest was that the statement did not allege a statutory ground of contest. The effort was to state a ground of contest under the first subdivision of section 455 of the Code of 1907, which provides that the election of any person declared elected to any office which is filled by the vote of a single county may be contested for the following causes: "(1) Malconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any inspector, clerk, marker, returning officer, board of supervisors, or other person."
In 1892 this subdivision of the section from which we have quoted was as it is now except that the concluding words "or other person" had not been added. These words appeared for the first time in the statute as codified in 1896. In Hilliard v. Brown, 97 Ala. 92, 13 So. 125, a case which arose under the law as it was in 1892, this statute in its then shape was under consideration. The averments of the statement of contest filed in that case are not shown in the report of that case, but we quote the gist of it from the transcript of the record as follows: "Your petitioner further showeth that the boxes in which said returns were made contained locks thereto, which were fastened and unfastened by a key, but the said sheriff, who was returning officer of the county, failed to remove the keys from said boxes and there was nothing to prevent any individual from unlocking said boxes, who had access to them, or who might obtain access to them; and petitioner charges that the said sheriff as returning officer did not use reasonable care in keeping the boxes containing the returns of said precinct inspectors, but kept the same in such negligent manner that evil disposed persons could obtain access thereto, and did so, and did extract from said boxes the said inspectors' certificates, so that the said board of supervisors could not count all the votes received by your petitioner," etc. After pointing out that the common law, in advance of the invention of the writ of quo warranto and apart from such use as might be made of that writ, a public office was not deemed to be such private property of the person appointed to exercise its functions, as that the courts organized for the enforcement of private rights were open to him to recover it from the usurpation of another, that the circuit court is a tribunal of special and limited jurisdiction in the matter of elections contested, and that the grounds upon which that court may exercise its jurisdiction in such cases are expressly prescribed, and a statement of them jurisdictional, the court said:
In later cases it has been held that, contests of elections being unauthorized except by statute, any material departure from the statutory mode of instituting and conducting such contests is unauthorized. Black v. Pate, 130 Ala. 514, 30 So. 434; Pearson v. Alverson, 160 Ala. 265, 49 So. 756. There is, however, no reason for placing contests of elections in a class different from other special statutory proceedings in which the record must affirmatively show facts conferring jurisdiction. The facts averred may be sufficient to invoke the exercise of jurisdiction, though they be averred defectively. This rule has had frequent illustration in cases in which the validity of sales of land under the authority of the probate court have been drawn into question. McCreary on Elections says: "It may be stated as a general rule, recognized by all courts of this country, that statutes providing for contesting elections are to be liberally construed, to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by any merely formal or technical objections." Section 431. The language of Paine on Elections is: Section 840. The rule here stated is a reasonable one, nor is it out of line with our own decisions in which it has been held that the statement of contest must show the court's jurisdiction to try the contest, and that amendments seeking to introduce new grounds of contest cannot be allowed after the expiration of the period prescribed by statute for the institution of contests. Black v. Pate, and Pearson v. Alverson, supra.
Petitioner's insistence is that the statement of contest filed was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court in that it fails to aver that the changes made in the returns of election, alleged to have been made by some person or persons to the contestant unknown,...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State ex rel. to Use of Bay v. Citizens State Bank
-
State ex rel. Radcliff v. Lauten
...of the time limit in which the proceeding could be begun, and therefore the cause should be dismissed on motion. In Ex parte Shepherd, 172 Ala. 205, 55 So. 627, it was observed that a sufficient bond required in an election contest is jurisdictional, but if an insufficient bond is filed wit......
-
City of Florence v. State
... ... of the board of supervisors, within subdivision 1 of said ... section 455-citing Ex parte Shepherd, 172 Ala. 205, 55 So ... 627. While, on the other hand, counsel for appellant insist ... that these grounds do not come within the ... ...
-
Shepherd v. Sartain
...contest by Charles M. Sartain against James W. Shepherd. From a judgment for contestant, contestee appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 172 Ala. 205, 55 So. 627; 173 Ala. 474, 55 So. McClellan, J., dissenting. Bankhead & Bankhead and F.A. Gamble, all of Jasper, for appellant. R.A. Cooner and W.C. ......