Putnam v. Langley
| Decision Date | 03 July 1882 |
| Citation | 133 Mass. 204 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Otis F. Putnam v. John R. Langley & others |
Argued November 1, 1881
Essex. Petition for a writ of mandamus, to compel the respondents John R. Langley and Daniel Richards, as water commissioners of the town of Danvers, to recognize, receive and act with the petitioner as a member of said board, and to compel the respondent Josiah Ross to refrain from acting as such member. Hearing before Endicott, J., who ordered the petition to be dismissed; and, at the request of both parties, reported the case for the determination of the full court, such judgment to be entered as law and justice might require. The facts appear in the opinion.
The case was argued at the bar in November 1881, and was afterwards submitted on briefs to all the judges.
Peremptory mandamus to issue.
D. N Crowley & T. M. Osborne, for the petitioner.
J. A Gillis, for the respondents.
The election of water commissioners was required to be by ballot and at the annual town meeting of the town of Danvers for the election of town officers. St. 1874, c. 191. The moderator of the meeting at which such officer was to be voted for appointed a committee of five citizens to count the ballots cast, who made report to him, and he announced the vote, and Josiah Ross was declared elected by a majority of one vote. A motion was thereupon made that the votes be recounted by a new committee, which was carried. The moderator then appointed a new committee, who recounted the votes, made report that the petitioner was elected by a majority of one vote, and the moderator so declared the vote, stating that it so appeared by the recount. These facts appear by the record. To this declaration no objection appears to have been made. As the ballots were not preserved and produced, and as there was no evidence where the ballot-box was during the time that elapsed between the first declaration and the recount, the recount cannot be said to be conclusively shown to have been correct, and unless, in connection with the fact that the declaration of it was unquestioned, it is in law so to be deemed, this petition cannot be maintained.
No provision is made by statute as to the mode in which, or the persons by whom, the result of such an election shall be ascertained. This must necessarily be done by the meeting itself, and, from its character and the numbers who compose it, must primarily be effected by a count of the votes by the moderator or other officers, or by a committee appointed by the meeting, or by its officers with its assent. Such committee is an instrument of the meeting, and not a distinct counting or canvassing board. No special force can be given to the declaration of the moderator, after such a committee reports the result of the count to him, that an officer is elected. It can amount to no more than a statement by him that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Johnson v. Hagemeister
...Davis, 284 Ill. 439, 120 N.E. 326, 2 A.L.R. 1650; Allen v. Morton, 94 Ark. 405, 127 S.W. 450; Baker v. Cushman, 127 Mass. 105; Putnam v. Langley, 133 Mass. 204; Wood v. Cutter, 138 Mass. 149; Reed v. [School Committee of Town of] Deerfield, 176 Mass. 473, 57 N.E. 961; State v. Foster, 7 N.J......
-
Moroni v. Brawders
...in precluding a belated attempt to unscramble the International and revive the Association. Walworth v. Brackett, 98 Mass. 98;Putnam v. Langley, 133 Mass. 204;Goulding v. Standish, 182 Mass. 401, 65 N.E. 803;Pevey v. Aylward, 205 Mass. 102, 107, 91 N.E. 315;Bancroft v. Cook, 264 Mass. 343, ......
-
Witherspoon v. State ex rel. West
...Davis, 284 Ill. 439, 120 N.E. 326, 2 A. L. R. 1650; Allen v. Morton, 94 Ark. 405, 127 S.W. 450; Baker v. Cushman, 127 Mass. 105; Putnam v. Langley, 133 Mass. 204; Wood v. Cutter, 138 Mass. Reed v. Deerfield, 176 Mass. 473, 57 N.E. 961; State v. Foster, 7 N.J.L. 101; Whitney v. Van Buskirk, ......
-
Moroni v. Brawders
...in precluding a belated attempt to unscramble the International and revive the Association. Walworth v. Brackett, 98 Mass. 98 . Putnam v. Langley, 133 Mass. 204 Goulding v. Standish, 182 Mass. 401 . Pevey v. Aylward, 205 Mass. 102 , 107. Bancroft v. Cook, 264 Mass. 343 . The judge found as ......