Owens v. Heartsill, 3 Div. 233
| Decision Date | 12 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 233 |
| Parties | Guy OWENS v. C. H. HEARTSILL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Ira DeMent, Montgomery, for appellant.
Rogers, Rogers & Scott, Greenville, for appellee.
This is a companion case to Jones v. Phillips, 185 So.2d 378, this day announced.
Appellant Guy Owens had declared himself as a candidate for Representative in the Legislature from the Thirty-Sixth District, Place No. 2, comprised of Butler, Crenshaw and Pike Counties.
Appellee Heartsill procured a temporary injunction against the probate judges of the three counties enjoining them from placing Owens' name on the ballot. Owens was permitted to intervene, moved to dissolve the temporary injunction, and after a hearing, the motion to dissolve was denied and this appeal followed.
Appellant filed his declaration of candidacy with the Chairman of the State Democratic Executive Committee on February 3, 1966, and a copy of this declaration with the Secretary of State on February 2, 1966. But he did not file the statement required by Tit. 17, § 274, as amended, with Judge of Probate of Pike County until February 11, 1966, with the Judge of Probate of Crenshaw County until February 15, 1966, or with the Judge of Probate of Butler County until February 28, 1966. All of these dates of filing are more than five days after his filing with the Chairman of the State Democratic Executive Committee.
The same principles of law apply here as in the case of Jones v. Phillips, Ala., 185 So.2d 378, this day announced; and on the authority of that case, the decree of the lower court must be affirmed.
This case was argued orally and submitted to the court on April 7, 1966. This court affirmed the decree of the lower court on April 8, 1966, but since time was urgent and it was imperative that the probate judges of the four counties be able to correctly prepare the ballots for the election, we did not then prepare an opinion but notified the parties that an opinion would follow. This opinion is in compliance therewith. McCutcheon v. Thomas, 261 Ala. 688, 75 So.2d 649; Ex parte Brassell, 261 Ala. 265, 73 So.2d 907.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hadnott v. Amos
...of §§ 274-275 as mandatory if raised in a direct proceeding prior to the election. Herndon v. Lee, supra; Jones v. Phillips, supra; Owens v. Heartsill, supra; cf. Garrett v. Cuninghame, 211 Ala. 430, 100 So. 845 (1924), though only directory if raised after the election. Section 275 has not......
-
Roper v. Rhodes
...his announcement and declaration of candidacy. Megginson cited Jones v. Phillips, 279 Ala. 354, 185 So.2d 378 (1966); Owens v. Heartsill, 279 Ala. 359, 185 So.2d 382 (1966); Herndon v. Lee, 281 Ala. 61, 199 So.2d 74 (1967); and Kirksey v. Democratic Party of Alabama, 495 So.2d 638 (Ala.1986......
-
Davis v. Reynolds
...his announcement and declaration of candidacy. Megginson cited Jones v. Phillips, 279 Ala. 354, 185 So.2d 378 (1966); Owens v. Heartsill, 279 Ala. 359, 185 So.2d 382 (1966); Herndon v. Lee, 281 Ala. 61, 199 So.2d 74 (1967), and Kirksey v. Democratic Party of Alabama, 495 So.2d 638 (Ala.1986......
-
Dunning v. Reynolds
...campaign funds within five days after the announcement of his candidacy. Jones v. Phillips, 279 Ala. 354, 185 So.2d 378; Owens v. Heartsill, 279 Ala. 359, 185 So.2d 382. "It is clearly apparent that Gilmore did not file the required statement within five days after May 3, 1966, the day on w......