Farrington v. Turner

• Citation: 53 Mich. 27,18 N.W. 544
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 06 March 1884
• Parties: FARRINGTON v. TURNER.

18 N.W. 544

53 Mich. 27

FARRINGTON v. TURNER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 6, 1884

Where on the day of the election a voting place is changed, it is no more than an irregularity, and the good faith of the action taken should control. The provisions as to the manner of holding elections are directory and not mandatory, unless it affirmatively appear that the irregularity is of a character to change the result.

Where the defeated party does not claim that the change of the voting place lost him any votes, or that he would have been elected but for the change, he has no injury to redress, and the irregularity does not make the whole election void.

Quo warranto.

Hatch &amp Cooley, for relator.

Tarsney & Weadock, for respondent.

SHERWOOD J.

This is a quo warranto proceeding, brought by the attorney general in behalf of the relator to ascertain the rights of the respondent to the office of sheriff in the county of Ogemaw. The respondent is the present incumbent, and claims to have been elected to the office at the general election in November 1882. Issue was joined at the April term of this court, and sent to the circuit court for the county of Ogemaw for trial on the facts. The trial was had by jury, and the issue as made up, together with the jury's findings at the trial are now before us upon this hearing.

The whole issue, as presented by the record, narrows down to the single question, "Was the vote taken in the township of Edwards legal?" If it was, the writ must be dismissed; if illegal, judgment of ouster must go against the respondent, and in that case it will remain to be determined whether or not the relator is entitled. The only irregularity relied upon by the relator is that on the morning of election the supervisor and justice of the peace met at the school-house in district No. 1 and organized as inspectors of election, and, without receiving any votes at that place, adjourned the election to the school-house in district No. 2 in said township, and on doing so announced the fact publicly to all present, and left a proper person at No. 1 to notify all electors who came there to vote of the change made by the board. The jury find, as matter of fact, the change was made in good faith by the inspectors, they believing they had the right to do so, and not to deprive any elector from voting, but for the purpose of accomodating a larger number of the voters,--district No. 1 being in the south-east corner of the township,--said township consisting of the territory of two surveyed townships,--and that the districts were about eight miles apart. The jury further find that two of the electors of the township did not vote because of the change made and other business, and that several objected to the removal of the place of voting; that it was not made to appear that any other neglected to vote because of the adjournment, or that those who stayed away, if any, would have voted for the relator if the change had not been made; that the voting at No. 2 was conducted orderly, the returns properly made, and in the county canvass the votes were counted as given, and the respondent declared elected.

Nowhere in the record is it made to appear that had the election in the township of Edwards been held in district No. 1, as relator claims it should have been, he would have received more votes, or even as many, as he received at No. 2. It is really not claimed by relator that he would have been elected had the election been held in district No. 1, but it is insisted that by the action complained of...