Spruill v. Bateman

• Decision Date: 26 March 1913
• Citation: 77 S.E. 768,162 N.C. 588
• Parties: SPRUILL v. BATEMAN.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

77 S.E. 768

162 N.C. 588

SPRUILL v. BATEMAN.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 26, 1913

Appeal from Superior Court, Washington County; Long, Judge.

Quo warranto by the State, on the relation of S. B. Spruill against W. M. Bateman. From a judgment for relator respondent appeals. Reversed.

Where the candidate for an office receiving the majority of the ballots cast was disqualified, the minority candidate is not elected, but the vacancy must be filled according to the provisions of the law.

A. D McLean, of Washington, N. C., for appellant.

W. M Bond, of Edenton, W. M. Bond, Jr., of Plymouth, and Ward & Grimes, of Washington, N. C., for appellee.

CLARK C.J.

At the election in November, 1912, Bateman was elected by the people of Washington county recorder of the "recorder's court of Plymouth," which was created by chapter 343, Public Local Laws 1911. Section 2 of said act prescribes that said recorder shall be "a qualified voter of Washington county and a man of good moral character and a licensed attorney at law." The defendant does not hold a license to practice law, and by this proceeding the relator seeks to oust him from the office on that ground, and to have himself inducted upon the ground that, Bateman not having all the qualifications prescribed by that act, the votes cast for him are to be disregarded, and that, therefore, the relator who received the next highest vote, is entitled to the office.

Taking up the second proposition first, Bateman having received the largest number of votes Spruill was not elected. If Bateman is disqualified to act, there must be a resort to the process of filling the office in case of a vacancy, as provided by section 16 of said act. When the candidate receiving the highest vote is ineligible, that cannot make his opponent who has been rejected by them the choice of the people. In Throop on Public Officers, § 163, it is held: "In this country the great current of authorities sustains the doctrine that the ineligibility of the majority candidate does not elect the minority candidate. And this without reference to the question whether the voters knew of the ineligibility of the candidate for whom they voted. It is considered that in such a case the votes for the ineligible candidate are not void." In Mechem, Public Officers, § 206, it is said that the doctrine in the United States, "supported by an undoubted preponderance of authority, is that the candidate receiving the highest number of votes may, because of his ineligibility, fall of election, yet the votes cast for him are so effectual as to prevent the election of other candidates, and there is no election at all." This is supported by numerous citations there given. Without citing them, it is sufficient to say that they hold that a candidate who receives fewer votes than are received by some other candidate cannot be said under any circumstances to be elected. In 15 Cyc. 391, the point is thus clearly stated with abundant citation of authority: "According to the English rule, if a candidate who received the highest number of votes is ineligible, and the electors had sufficient notice of his ineligibility at the time of voting for him, their votes are thrown away, and the candidate having the next highest number of votes, if he is eligible, must be declared elected; and in one American jurisdiction (Ind.) the English rule has been adopted. But it is a fundamental idea in American politics that the majority shall rule, and that no person can be elected to office unless he shall receive a majority, or at least a plurality, of all the votes. It has accordingly been settled by the House of Representatives of the United States that the ineligibility of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes gives no title to the candidate receiving the next highest number, even though the election was held in a state where the contrary rule obtains. The same rule has been adopted by the United States Senate and has the support of the great weight of judicial authority in the United States. It may be well to add in this connection that it is not within the power of a state to add to the qualifications prescribed for Representaives in Congress and Senators of the United States by the Constitution of the United States, so as to render ineligible candidates who would otherwise be eligible under the federal Constitution." To same effect Brightley on Elections, 144; Commonwealth v. Cluley, 56 Pa. 270, 94 Am. Dec. 75. It has also been the settled practice as to contested elections in the General Assembly of this state that, when the candidate receiving the majority vote has been found ineligible, the minority candidate has not been seated, but a new election has been ordered. The English rule was formerly as above stated. When John Wilkes, the celebrated "agitator," after being three times denied his seat in Parliament and expelled, was promptly a fourth time elected by the voters of Middlesex, Parliament ventured to seat his opponent, Col. Luttrell, who had received a minority. The storm of indignation that swept through the Kingdom came near to becoming a revolution, and to Wilkes' consequent popularity we owe the fact that a great county in this state bears his name.

As to the other question: The Constitution of this state (article 6) prescribes who shall be "voters," and section 7 of that article provides: "Every voter in North Carolina, except as in this article disqualified, shall be eligible to...