Neff v. George

• Citation: 364 Ill. 306,4 N.E.2d 388
• Decision Date: 14 October 1936
• Docket Number: No. 23235.,23235.
• Parties: NEFF v. GEORGE.
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

364 Ill. 306

4 N.E.2d 388

NEFF

v.GEORGE.

No. 23235.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 14, 1936.

Appeal from Vermilion County Court; John H. Gillan, Judge.

Election contest by W. A. Neff against Harry C. George. From an adverse order, the defendant appeals, and the plaintiff cross-appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

STONE and WILSON, JJ., dissenting.Allen Dalbey & Foreman, A. B. Dennis, S. V. Jinkins, and L. A. Lowenstein, all of Danville (Everett L. Dalbey and Ray M. Foreman, both of Danville of counsel), for appellant.

Acton, Acton & Baldwin, gunn, Penwell & Lindley, and Fleming & Henderson, all of Danville, for appellee.

JONES, Justice.

W. A. Neff and Harry C. George were the Republican and Democratic candidates, respectively, for the office of sheriff of Vermilion county at the election held on November 6, 1934. The canvassing board credited George with 17,289 votes and Neff with 17,232 votes and issued a certificate of election to George. Upon a re-count in an election contest filed by Neff, the county court found that Neff received 16,923 votes and that George received 16,918 votes, and entered an order declaring Neff elected. The cause is here on George's appeal. A cross-appeal by Neff questions the correctness of certain rulings of the trial court.

The ballots counted by the judges of election which were initialed by one of them with the initials of another judge of election were excluded by the court upon the recount; 284 of such votes were deducted from those cast for George and 196 were deducted from those cast for Neff, the result of which was a net gain of 88 votes for Neff. The section of the statute relating to the initialing of ballots (46 S.H.A. 311; Ill.Rev.Stat.1935, c. 46, par. 225) provides: ‘One of the judges shall give the voter one, and only one ballot, on the back of which such judge shall indorse his initials in such manner that they may be seen when the ballot is properly folded, and the voter's name shall be immediately checked on the register list.’ Some confusion has existed in the past as to what extent this section is mandatory, but in Waters v. Heaton, 364 Ill. 150, 4 N.E.(2d) 41, decided at the last term of this court, it is definitely settled that the provision is directory only, and expressions to the contrary are overruled. The trial court therefore erred in excluding the ballots initialed by one election judge with the initials of another such judge.

Appellee urges that Waters v. Heaton, supra, overrules a long line of previous decisions of this court, and discusses at length the doctrine of stare decisis. While in arriving at our decision no specific reference is made to that doctrine, we were fully cognizant of it and of the fact that it is not universally applicable to all situations without exception. The doctrine has more or less force, according to the nature of the question decided. Stated in its general and simplest terms, the doctrine of stare decisis expresses the policy of the courts to stand by precedents and not to disturb settled points. The general rule is that decisions long acquiesced in, which constitute rules of property or trade or upon which important rights are based, should not be disturbed even though a different conclusion might have been reached if the question presented were an open one, unless the evils of the principle laid down will be more injurious to the community than can possibly result from a change. Prall v. Burckhartt, 299 Ill. 19, 132 N.E. 280, 18 A.L.R. 992; 7 R.C.L. 1001, 1009. Stability and uniformity of decisions conduce so much to the public welfare and happiness that, when a rule of law has once been settled, contravening no statute or constitutional principles, it ought to be followed unless it can be shown that serious detriment is thereby likely to arise prejudicial to public interests. Heidenreich v. Bremner, 260 Ill. 439, 103 N.E. 275;Koch v. Sheppard, 223 Ill. 172, 79 N.E. 52. No court, we believe, has gone farther than this court to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis, but, where it is clear that the court has made a mistake, it will not decline to correct it, although it may have been reasserted and acquiesced in for a long number of years, especially if the former decisions are injurious or unjust in their operation. Prall v. Burckhartt, supra; The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 443, 13 L.Ed. 1058. Obviously, if a voter must see to it that the initials on his ballot were placed there by the judge whose initials it bears, he must personally know the judge and see him initial the ballot. It is equally obvious that in large urban communities this would be practically impossible. At the penalty of disfranchisement it puts an unreasonable burden on the voter. Manifestly, perpetuating such a holding would result in greater harm to the voters of this state than correcting the error. Giving the doctrine of start decisis what may be called a personal application, it cannot be relied upon by one who has not in good faith been deceived or misled to his prejudice by reliance upon a decision which the court subsequently concludes was erroneous. 7 R.C.L. 1002. Appellee is in that position here. The initialing of the ballot was something with which he had nothing to do. We adhere to our holding in Waters v. Heaton, supra.

Appellant questions the rulings in counting or excluding thirty-eight ballots on account of the manner in which they were marked by the voters. Ballot 5-XX had a cross in the Republican circle. Lines are drawn through a part of Neff's name and that of Meeks, a candidate for Congress. The lines were apparently made intentionally. This ballot was improperly counted for Neff. Ballot 22-XX was excluded on the ground that the lines in the cross in front of George's name do not intersect within the square. A close inspection shows an intersection within the square. The ballot should have been counted for George. Under former decisions of this court the rulings on the other 36 ballots were correct, and it could serve no good purpose to discuss them in detail.

We now consider the cross-errors assigned by Neff.

Ballot 1-V was rejected. It contained crosses in the Republican and Socialist circles. There were no county candidates on the Socialist ticket. The crosses in the circles nullified each other, but the ballot should have been counted for Neff.

On ballot 3-V the judge's first initial is difficult to decipher but the testimony...