State ex rel. Mercer v. Sullivan

• Citation: 83 Wis. 416,53 N.W. 677
• Parties: STATE EX REL. MERCER v. SULLIVAN ET AL.
• Decision Date: 15 November 1892
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

83 Wis. 416

53 N.W. 677

STATE EX REL. MERCER

v.SULLIVAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 15, 1892.

Appeal from circuit court, Oneida county; CHARLES V. BARDEEN, Judge.

Application in the name of the state, on relation of John A. Mercer, for mandamus to J. W. Sullivan and others, inspectors of election. The application was granted, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by CASSODAY, J.:

It appears from the record that at the general election last preceding April 5, 1892, the town of Minocqua was divided into two election precincts, the first being at the village of Minocqua, and the second being at Manitowish Station; that at the annual town meeting held in said town, April 5, 1892, the relator and one M. F. Doyle were each candidates for the office of chairman of said town; that, at said election at the village of Minocqua, the relator received 131 votes, and Doyle received 105, and at Manitowish Station the relator received 5 votes, and Doyle 42, making the relator's votes, in the aggregate, 136, and Doyle's votes, in the aggregate, 147, and that the defendants, as inspectors of said election, declared the said Doyle elected as chairman of said town; that thereupon, and on April 12th, the relator presented to the circuit court his petition, setting forth the facts stated, among others, and praying for a writ of mandamus to compel said inspectors and clerks to reassemble and declare those persons to be elected to office who received the majority of the votes cast at said first precinct, as shown by the canvass, count, and determination of the votes thereat cast, as made and declared by them and entered upon the records of said town, and to announce the result thereof, and to make the statement required by section 805, Rev. St.; that April 12, 1892, the said court thereupon caused to be issued its alternative writ of mandamus; that the defendants thereupon moved to quash said writ, on the grounds that it did not state facts sufficient to entitle the relator thereto, nor to the relief sought, nor any relief, and that it appeared upon the face thereof that the relator had an adequate remedy at law; that April 25, 1892, the court denied said motion, and thereupon the defendants made return to said writ, denying that they had failed or neglected to make statement of the result of said election and determination, and alleging that they had substantially complied with the law in making and filing the statement required, and that their functions as inspectors and clerk had ceased, and that they had no power or legal right or authority to again reassemble and declare the relator, or any other candidate not having received a majority of the votes cast, to be elected; that, having declared the candidates having such majority duly elected, they had no further power as such officials in the premises; that the officers so declared by them to be duly elected, including said...