Helms v. Vaughan
| Decision Date | 05 April 1888 |
| Citation | 84 Va. 696,5 S.E. 704 |
| Parties | Helms et al. v. Vaughan et al. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Elections—Review op, by County Court—Jurisdiction.
Where the Virginia act which provides that the returns of county elections shall be subject to the inquiry of the county court upon the complaint of qualified voters, to which two shall take and subscribe an oath, the omission to subscribe as required does not deprive the court of jurisdiction, such provision not being essential to the validity of the proceedings unless so declared by statute.
Appeal from circuit court, Isle of Wight county; Chandlek W. Hill, Judge.
Action in county court to try a contested election case upon complaint of J. M. Vauglian and others against J. II. Nelms and others. Upon motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction, because the oath to the complaint had not been subscribed as required, complaint was dismissed. Plaintiffs appealed to circuit court, where the appeal was sustained, and the cause retained in said court. Defendants appeal, and pray for writ of prohibition.
J. F. Cracker, for petitioner. Jas. Christian and W. S. Holland, for respondent.
This is a petition for a writ of prohibition. The object is to restrain the Hon. Chandler W. Hill, judge of the circuit court of Isle of Wight county, from exceeding his jurisdiction in trying a contested election case involving a controversy over the county offices of that county, on the ground that the oath appended to the petition of the qualified voters, by which the proceedings were inaugurated, was not subscribed by two of the petitioners, while it is admitted that the said oath was duly sworn, although not subscribed. By the seventh section of chapter 10 of the Code it is provided that the returns of elections of county officers shall be subject to the inquiry, determination, and judgment of the county court; and by the fourth section of chapter 144 of the Acts of 1874 (Sess. Acts 1874, p. 159) an appeal to the circuit court is provided for, whose decision the law declares shall be final. The consideration of the circuit court in this case has been invoked by appeal from the said county court of Isle of Wight county. The case being a case of a contested election for county officers commenced in the county court, and duly carried to the circuit court by appeal, as has been said, there can be no doubt of the jurisdiction of that court unless the jurisdiction of that court in this particular case has been unlawfully obtained in some respect. If that court has erred in a case intrusted to it by law, that error can only be corrected by appeal; and as to this sort of case there is no appeal, as the law provides that the circuit court shall determine finally. But as the law provides that the returns of such elections shall be subject to the judgment of the said court upon the complaint of fifteen or more of the qualified voters of the county of an undue election and false return, and provides that two of these shall take and subscribe an oath or affirmation, and the oath in this case does not appear to be subscribed, it is claimed that the circuit court has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint, one of the directions of the statute not having been literally complied with; while, on the other hand, it is suggested that as to this provision there are no negative words employed which import that the act shall be done in this particular manner and not otherwise, but that the law expressly provides that the courts shall, in judging of such elections, proceed upon the merits thereof, and shall determine finally concerning the same according to the constitution and laws of this commonwealth, while it is provided as to this complaint that "such complaint shall not be valid or regarded by the court, unless the same shall have been filed within ten days after the election, in the clerk's office of the proper court." In considering this question we will remark that the writ of prohibition is issued by a superior court, directed to the judge and parties of a suit in an inferior court, commanding them to cease from the prosecution of the same, upon a suggestion that the cause originally, or some collateral matter arising therein, does not belong to that jurisdiction, but to the cognizance of some other court. The writ of prohibition may also be issued when, having jurisdiction, the court has attempted to proceed by rules differing from those which ought to have been observed, or when by the exercise of its jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chatman v. Commonwealth
...which contains sufficient assignments of error and otherwise substantially complies with the applicable rule. See Nelms v. Vaughan, 84 Va. 696, 700, 5 S.E. 704, 706 (1888) (providing that “whether [a] statute [using the word ‘shall’ is] mandatory or not depend[s] upon whether the thing dire......
-
Commonwealth v. Hackett, Record No. 2594-07-2 (Va. App. 3/11/2008), Record No. 2594-07-2.
...S.E.2d 813, 816 (2002) (quoting Jamborsky v. Baskins, 247 Va. 506, 511, 442 S.E.2d 636, 638 (1994)); see also Nelms v. Vaughan, 84 Va. 696, 699-700, 5 S.E. 704, 705-06 (1888). "'[A] statute may be mandatory in some respects, and directory in others.'" Ladd v. Lamb, 195 Va. 1031, 1035, 81 S.......
-
Robinson v. Clarke
...to the validity of the proceedings, unless so declared by statute.' " Id. at 619, 570 S.E.2d at 816 (quoting Nelms v. Vaughan, 84 Va. 696, 699, 5 S.E. 704, 706 (1888)). The Court observed that Code § 8.01-353 contained "no prohibitory or limiting language" nullifying the result of a trial i......
-
Oliver v. Com.
...compliance is not to be deemed essential to the validity of the proceedings, unless so declared by statute." Nelms v. Vaughan, 84 Va. 696, 699, 5 S.E. 704, 706 (1888). Butler v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 614, 619, 570 S.E.2d 813, 816 (2002). Neither Code § 18.2-268.2, nor the statutes relevant ......