State ex rel. O'Connell v. Mitchell, 8161.

Docket Nº8161.
Citation106 P.2d 180, 111 Mont. 94
Case DateOctober 05, 1940
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Montana

106 P.2d 180

111 Mont. 94

MITCHELL, Secretary of State.

No. 8161.

Supreme Court of Montana

October 5, 1940

Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1940.

Mandamus proceeding by the State of Montana, on the relation of Jerry J. O'Connell, against Sam W. Mitchell, as Secretary of State of the State of Montana.

Philip O'Donnell, of Butte, for relator.


Relator filed application for a writ of mandate directed against the respondent Sam W. Mitchell, Secretary of State, setting forth the following material facts: That on or about July 3, 1940, a petition in due form was filed in the office of respondent for the initiative of a certain measure. It is alleged in substance that this petition contained the requisite number of signatures of qualified voters entitling the measure to be voted upon at the next general election, and that the respondent refuses to notify the Governor of the filing of the petition and to take other steps necessary to have the measure submitted to the qualified electors at the general election to be held on November 5, 1940.

Upon hearing arguments by counsel for relator for the issuance of an alternative writ, it was conceded that after the petition was filed in the office of the Secretary of State withdrawal petitions had been filed in his office containing sufficient signers of the original petition to reduce the number below that required by the Constitution entitling the measure to go before the electorate in the general election of November 5th.

Relator made the contention that the Secretary of State was in error in considering the withdrawal petitions upon the theory that they came too late in that they cannot, under his contention, be considered after the petition has been forwarded to the Secretary of State by the individual county clerks. This leaves but one legal question for determination, and that is: When may signers to an initiative petition exercise the right of withdrawal?

The cases are not in harmony on this question. There are cases supporting relator's contention. They are listed in Uhl v. Collins, 217 Cal. 1, 17 P.2d 99, 85 A.L.R. 1370. However, this court has adopted the view that the right of withdrawal exists until final action is taken on [106 P.2d 181.] the petition by the person or body created by law to determine the matter submitted by petition. This was squarely held in the case of Ford v. Mitchell, 103 Mont. 99, 61 P.2d 815. That case followed the rule...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Nigretto v. Industrial Accident Fund, 8083.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • October 5, 1940
    ...of the witnesses who testified as to the mistake in the transcription of the original record. This did not furnish any affirmative proof [106 P.2d 180.] of the existence of the fractured rib, and the record is barren of any direct testimony that a fractured rib condition existed. Plaintiff ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT