Moore v. Mayfield

• Decision Date: 31 January 1868
• Citation: Moore v. Mayfield, 47 Ill. 167, 1868 WL 4953 (Ill. 1868)
• Parties: SYLVESTER L. MOOREv.MILTON MAYFIELD.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

47 Ill. 167

1868 WL 4953 (Ill.)

SYLVESTER L. MOORE

v.MILTON MAYFIELD.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1868.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Morgan county.

At an election held on the 6th day of November, 1866, Sylvester L. Moore and Milton Mayfield were opposing candidates for the office of sheriff of Morgan county, and upon counting the votes, the canvassers declared that Moore had received a majority thereof, and was elected to that office.On the 4th of December following, Mayfield notified Moore that he should contest the alleged right of the latter to hold the office, on the ground that he, Mayfield, had received a majority of all the legal votes cast at said election, and that he should, on a day named, proceed to take proof, etc.

Three justices of the peace were selected in the manner prescribed in chapter 37 of the Revised Statutes, entitled “Elections,” to decide upon the respective claims of the parties.A trial was had, which resulted in a decision that Mayfield had received a majority of all the legal votes cast at the election for the office of sheriff, and was therefore duly elected thereto, and a judgment was entered against Moore for the costs of the proceeding.From this decision of the justices, Moore took an appeal to the circuit court of Morgan county.At the special term of that court, commenced on the third Monday of November, 1867, Moore entered his motion that the court grant him a trial by jury, which was overruled, and a trial was had before the court, resulting, as that had before the justices, in a decision that Mayfield had received a majority of the legal votes cast at the election, and was duly elected to the office of sheriff; and the court adjudged that Mayfield recover his costs.

Moore thereupon tendered his bill of exceptions, which was signed and sealed by the circuit judge, and this writ of error was sued out by Moore to bring the proceedings before this court for review.

At the January term, 1868, of this court, the plaintiff in error entered his motion that the writ of error be made a supersedeas, and thereupon the defendant in error entered a cross-motion to dismiss the writ of error, upon the ground that the decision of the circuit court was final, and no writ of error would lie.

Messrs. MORRISON & EPLER and Messrs. CASE & STRYKER, for the plaintiff in error.Messrs. KETCHAM & ATKINS, for the defendant in error.

PER CURIAM:

The cross-motion of the defendant, to dismiss this writ of error, on the ground that the decision of the circuit court was final, must be allowed.The language of the 49th section of the election law (Rev. Stat. 1845, 224), which controls this question, is explicit, that on an appeal to the circuit court from the decision of the justices, in the matter of a contested election such...