Phillips v. Smith
| Citation | 55 P. 184,25 Colo. 456 |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1898 |
| Docket Number | 3,977. |
| Parties | PHILLIPS, County, Clerk, v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Review from district court, Lake county.
Action by Joel W. Smith and others against Harry S. Phillips, county clerk and recorder of Lake county, to review his ruling refusing to certify plaintiffs' names on a certain official ballot. The ruling was reversed, and defendant petitions for review. Affirmed.
Charles Cavender and others were nominated by petition as the candidates of the Teller Silver Republican party, in which petition the emblem of that party, theretofore filed in the nomination of a state ticket, was also adopted. This certificate of nomination was filed on the 20th day of October, 1898. Previous to the time of such filing, a meeting of the representatives of the party was held in Denver, at which a member of the state central committee and chairman of the county committee was appointed for the county of Lake who subsequently directed a petition to be circulated nominating the respondents for the same offices, under the name and emblem claimed by Mr. Cavender and his conominees which certificate was tendered for filing October 22, 1898. In the proceedings had before petitioner as county clerk and recorder of Lake county, it was held that those named in the certificate of nomination filed October 20th were entitled to appear on the official ballot as the nominees of the party for the county named. On review by the district court, this ruling was reversed, and judgment rendered that the list of persons named in the certificate tendered for filing October 22d was entitled to appear upon such ballot, from which judgment petitioner brings the case to this court for review.
John A. Ewing and John M. Maxwell, for petitioner.
W. H. Bryant, for respondents.
GABBERT, J. (after stating the facts).
When a contest arises over different sets of nominations claimed to have been made by the same political party, one of the controlling questions always is, which set was made by the regular convention of such party? Ordinarily this regularity depends upon a nomination made by delegates selected and convening in accordance with the call by those representing the party in the district in which such convention is held. The same rule with regard to regularity must be observed and control in nominations made by petition. If a party is organized, although it may not have sufficient strength to make nominations by convention, it is entitled to have whatever proceedings it may take with reference to making nominations protected in the same way that nominations by conventions are; and therefore, if parties undertake to make a nomination by petition who are not authorized to do so, such a nomination cannot be sustained as against one made by those who do represent the party. The nomination of respondents as the nominees of the Teller Silver Republican party was at the instance and under the direction of the representatives of that party for the county of Lake, and, although the certificate of such nomination was filed with the county clerk and recorder subsequent to the one filed by Mr. Cavender and his co-nominees, it is entitled to recognition, as against the latter, for the reason that the nomination so made was at the instance of the representatives of the Teller Silver Republican party, and the latter was not. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Affirmed.
In the district court the decision was in favor of the respondent Smith on the ground that the Cavender petition was not filed in good faith. A microscopic investigation of the record by this court fails to reveal any evidence to sustain such a finding, but another reason is given for the affirmance of the judgment. If I understand the opinion, the Smith nomination is held regular because made by the representatives in Lake county of the Teller Silver Republican party. If that principle is to control, the ruling is wrong, as the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baer v. Meyer, 84-1056
...the same way that nominations by convention are .... McBroom v. Brown, 53 Colo. 412, 127 P. 957, 958 (1912) (citing Phillips v. Smith, 25 Colo. 456, 55 P. 184 (Colo.1898)). If this clear mandate of the Colorado Supreme Court were being followed, this issue would not currently be before us. ......
-
Whipple v. Stevenson
......Gen., Calvin E. Reed, Asst. Atty. Gen., James H. Brown, and James H. Blood, and Victor A. Elliott, for petitioner. . . John R. Smith and Thomas Ward, Jr., for respondents. . . GABBERT,. J. (after stating the facts). . . It will. be observed that the ......
-
McBroom v. Brown
...this organization; and that the nomination of the candidates upon the certificate filed had not been thus authorized. In Philips v. Smith et al., 25 Colo. 456, 55 P. 184, this held that where a party is organized, although it may not have sufficient strength to make nominations by conventio......