State ex rel. Casper v. Piper
| Decision Date | 16 December 1896 |
| Citation | 69 N.W. 383,50 Neb. 40 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. CASPER v. PIPER, SECRETARY OF STATE. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
The provisions of the statute (section 136, c. 26) known as the “ Australian Ballot Law,” requiring objections to a certificate of nomination of candidates for office to be filed within three days after the filing of such certificate, are mandatory, and must be strictly followed, else said certificate, if in conformity with law, will be deemed valid.
Application by the state, on the relation of C. D. Casper, for a writ of mandamus against Joel A. Piper, secretary of state. Writ denied.
Robert Wheeler, Frederick Shepherd, and Bane & Altschuler, for relator.
John H. Ames, for respondent.
This was an application by C. D. Casper, as chairman of the Democratic congressional committee for the Fourth congressional district, for a writ of mandamus to determine the right of the secretary of state to certify to the several county clerks of said district the name of R. E. Dumphy as the Democratic nominee for congress from such district. Like the two other cases decided herewith, the controversy grows out of the fact that two rival factions of the Democratic party have made and filed separate certificates of nomination for said office. The validity of the nomination of Mr. Dumphy alone is assailed in this proceeding. All the questions involved, except one, were decided in State v. Piper, 50 Neb. 25, 69 N. W. 378. One subject presented by the application for the writ requires notice, and that is whether the relator is in any position to question the nomination of Mr. Dumphy, or the right to have his name appear upon the official ballot as the Democratic nominee from the Fourth congressional district. The application alleges that on the 1st day of October, 1896, the certificate of nomination of R. E. Dumphy as the Democratic nominee for congressman for that district was filed in the office of the secretary of state; that on the 12th day of the same month the relator filed his protest and objections to said certificate of nomination; and that the respondent overruled said objections, and decided that the name of Mr. Dumphy was entitled to have place upon the official and sample ballots. Section 11 of the Australian ballot law (section 136, c. 26, Comp. St.) declares that “all certificates of nomination which are in apparent conformity with the provisions of this act shall be deemed to be valid, unless...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stewart
...and Mr. R. L. Gowdy, for defendant, cited and commented upon the following authorities: State v. Lesueur, 103 Mo. 253; 169 Ill. 369; 50 Neb. 40; Miller Clark, 62 Kan. 279; Kirker v. Cincinnati, 48 Ohio St. 507; Chapman v. Miller, 52 Ohio St. 166; Randall v. State, 64 Ohio St. 57; State v. D......
- State ex rel. Dahlman v. Piper
-
State ex rel Eastham v. Dewey
...law requiring declinations to be filed a certain number of days before election." State v. Falley, 9 N.D. 464, 83 N.W. 913; State v. Piper, 50 Neb. 40, 69 N.W. 383; Hollon v. Center, 102 Ky. 119, 43 S.W. 174; In re Cuddeback, 39 N.Y.S. 388; Griffin v. Dingley, 114 Cal. 481, 46 P. 457; Phill......
-
Napton v. Meek
...instance, that certificate of nomination must be filed within a certain time. (State v. Falley, 9 N. Dak. 464, 83 N.W. 913; Casper v. Piper, 50 Neb. 40, 69 N.W. 383; v. Center, 102 Ky. 119, 43 S.W. 174; In re Cuddeback, 3 A.D. 103, 39 N.Y.S. 388; Griffin v. Dingly, 114 Cal. 48, 46 P. 457; P......