State ex rel. Acker v. Reeves, 28741

• Decision Date: 08 January 1951
• Docket Number: No. 28741,28741
• Citation: 95 N.E.2d 838,229 Ind. 126
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ACKER et al. v. REEVES, Judge of Vanderburgh Circuit Court et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 838

95 N.E.2d 838

229 Ind. 126

STATE ex rel. ACKER et al. v. REEVES, Judge of Vanderburgh Circuit Court et al.

No. 28741.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 8, 1951.

Theodore Lockyear, Wilbur F. Dassel, William P. Foreman, all of Evansville, for appellants.

Milford M. Miller, Robert J. Hayes, Vance L. Hartke, William T. Fitzgerald, W. D. Hardy, all of Evansville, for appellees.

GILKISON, Judge.

Relators have filed in this court an original action asking that a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandate be issued against the respondents, Reeves, as Judge of the Vanderburgh Circuit Court and the Vanderburgh Circuit Court. A temporary writ of prohibition and an alternate writ of mandate was duly issued and served upon respondents to which respondents have filed their response.

In their petition relators aver in substance that at the general election held in Indiana on November 7, 1950, they were each a candidate for State Representative from Vanderburgh County. That there were three State Representatives to be elected from the county at that election. That each relator was duly elected to said respective offices and each was duly declared elected by the County Board of Canvassers and duly certified as such. That on November 22, 1950, Edward Crabtree, John E. Early, Leo A. Meagher, Val A. Dietsch, Verone Marie Rieber, Edward H. Kinkle and James H. Meyer filed with respondents their petition and complaint in two paragraphs respectively; in paragraph one asking for a recount of the votes cast in said election for said offices; and in paragraph two to contest the election for said offices and others. On November 27, 1950 a special appearance was entered for relators by Theodore Lockyear, attorney, for the purpose of filing a plea in abatement and a motion to dismiss.

Thereafter, considerable record was made by respondents in said matter, culminating on December 4, 1950, in the appointment of recount commissioners, and an order that the recount begin on December 11, 1950.

The petition avers that the respondents are without jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. That in ordering a recount of the ballots for said offices, respondents have exceeded their lawful jurisdiction, and that they will continue to act beyond their jurisdiction unless prohibited from so doing by this court.

Ten different reasons why respondents are without jurisdiction in the matter are set forth in relators' petition. We shall give special consideration to the first, which in substance is, that Art. 4, § 10 of the Indiana Constitution provides that the House of Representatives has sole and exclusive jurisdiction to judge the election, qualifications and returns of its own members.

In other decisions we have rather frequently called attention that under our Constitution this court has 'such original jurisdiction as the General Assembly may confer.' Art. 7, § 4. The General Assembly has made it a duty of this court, upon proper petition filed, to issue writs of mandate 'to the circuit, superior, criminal, probate, juvenile or municipal courts of this state, respectively, compelling the performance of any duty enjoined by law' upon them. The General Assembly has also made it our duty to issue writs of prohibition to such courts 'to restrain and confine' them 'to their respective, lawful jurisdiction.' Sec. 3-2201 Burns 1946 Replacement.

With respect to contesting the election of a member of the General Assembly the Indiana Constitution provides as follows: 'Each House, when assembled, shall * * *; judge the elections, qualifications, and returns of its own members; * * *.'

Art. 4, § 10 Indiana Constitution.

Art. 1, § 5 United States Constitution is a similar provision for members of the Congress.

In the light of these constitutional provisions this court, speaking by Shake, J., in Lucas v. McAfee, 1940, 217 Ind. 534, 539, 542, 29 N.E.2d 403, 405, 29 N.E.2d 588, among other things, said:

'The right of legislative bodies to judge the elections, qualifications, and returns of their own members is of ancient origin. The history of the doctrine reveals that it was established in the constitutional law of England in the year of 1586, during the...