Silvey v. Lindsay
| Decision Date | 04 October 1887 |
| Citation | 13 N.E. 444,107 N.Y. 55 |
| Parties | SILVEY v. LINDSAY and others. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from general term, supreme court, Fifth department.
The controversy between the parties was submitted to the court below upon an agreed case, from which it appeared that on the ninth of February, 1886, c. 270,) and situated in the inmate of the Soldiers' Home, an institution duly incorporated, (Laws 1876, c. 270,) and situated in the Fifth election district of the town of Bath, Steuben county. The expenses of the institution, and the support of its inmates, are paid by the state out of annual appropriations made by the legislature. On the ninth day of February, 1886, the annual town meeting for the town of Bath was duly held at the court-house in said town for the election of a supervisor and other town officers. The defendants were the justices of the peace of said town, and as such were present and presided at said town meeting, and received the votes of all the persons who voted at said town meeting. The plaintiff offered to vote, and, being challenged, made the statement set forth in the opinion. The statement was true, and known to be so by the defendants, but they refused to receive his vote, saying, ‘We decide that you are not a legal voter here, for the reason that, on the facts stated, you are not a resident of the town of Bath.’ The question submitted to the court was, ‘Did James Silvey (the plaintiff) gain a residence in the town of Bath, so as to entitle him to vote at said town meeting, by reason of his presence as an inmate of said institution?’ The general term of the Fifth department answered in the affirmative, and gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appeal to this court.
J. F. Parkhurst, for appellants.
Miller & Nichols, for respondent.
The plaintiff's vote was rejected upon the sole ground that he was not a resident of Bath. That he was by age, sex, and citizenship duly qualified to exercise the franchise was not denied; but the defendants after hearing his oath, and his statement under it, decided that he had not been, within the meaning of the law, for 30 days next preceding the election, a resident of the district from which ‘the officers were to be chosen for whom he offered to vote.’ The right claimed by him involved this inquiry, (Const. N. Y. art. 2, § 1;) and as to it (his vote being challenged) he said as follows:
It is obvious that his narration of an intention to change his residence to Bath, and his assertion that he resided in Bath, can be accepted only as conclusions from the circumstances detailed in connection with them. They were his conclusions; and the defendants, in view of his whole statement, were not bound by them. They were bound by the facts stated, and were required to say upon those facts whether the plaintiff was qualified in the necessary particular, and undoubtedly they were to determine the question at their peril. The constitution, in the section referred to supra, specifies the qualifications necessary to the elective franchise, provides who shall have the right to vote, and one duly qualified cannot be deprived of that right by any inferior tribunal. But the constitution also provides, (article 2, § 3:) ‘For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States; nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this state, or of the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palla v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections
...conclusive and election officials may look to the actual facts and circumstances attending such professions (see, e.g., Silvey v. Lindsay, 107 N.Y. 55, 13 N.E. 444; Matter of Goodman, 146 N.Y. 284, 40 N.E. Under ordinary circumstances, and at common law, the fact of physical presence within......
-
Gorenberg v. Onondaga County Bd. of Elections
...The quoted constitutional and statutory enactment 'disqualifies no one; confers no right upon anyone' (Silvey v. Lindsay, et al., 107 N.Y. 55, 61, 13 N.E. 444 (1887)). It means only that such presence at a seat of learning is not 'a test of a right to vote', and is not to be so regarded. Th......
-
Powell v. Spackman
...absence from the county of their residence they should not lose their right to vote in the latter county. In the case of Silvey v. Lindsay, 107 N.Y. 55, 13 N.E. 444, the court of appeals of New York construed a provision. The plaintiff in that case had been an inmate of the soldiers' home a......
-
Hale v. Stimson
... ... inmates to vote at such home, but entitles them to vote at ... their former homes -- their real residences. [ Silvey v ... Lindsay, 107 N.Y. 55, 13 N.E. 444; Wolcott v ... Holcomb, 97 Mich. 361, 56 N.W. 837; Powell v ... Spackman, 7 Idaho 692, 65 P. 503.] ... ...