State ex rel. Whittemore v. Peacock
| Decision Date | 29 May 1884 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. WHITTEMORE v. PEACOCK. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Original action in mandamus.
J. R. Webster, for relator.
C. O. Whedon, for respondents.
This is an application for a mandamus against the defendants, who are special county commissioners of Brown county, to canvass the votes cast in Long Pine precinct for the location of the county seat of that county. It appears from the record that Brown county was organized on the twelfth day of March, 1883, and Thomas Peacock, Isaac N. Alderman, and Daniel D. Carpenter were appointed special county commissioners; that the county was thereupon divided into suitable precincts, and an election called to be held on the nineteenth day of July, 1883, for the election of precinct and county officers, and the location of the county seat; that on the twenty-fourth of July, 1883, said commissioners and the county clerk met and canvassed all the returns of said election, except Long Pine precinct; that the votes as canvassed for county seat were as follows: For Ainsworth, 441 votes; for Long Pine, 309 votes; for Bassett, 74 votes,--making a total of 824; and, as Ainsworth had a majority of all the votes canvassed, it was declared the county seat; that the votes cast at Long Pine for county seat were as follows: For Ainsworth, 2 votes; for Long Pine, 29 votes; for Bassett, 45 votes; for Morris Bridge, 3 votes; which, if canvassed, would make a total of 903 votes, and require another election for the location of the county seat. These returns upon their face were sufficiently authenticated to show that they were genuine. The law placed upon these defendants the duty of canvassing the returns--not a portion, but all of them. If they could throw out one precinct, why not two or more, and thus practically disfranchise a portion of the people, and defeat the will of the majority. Such practice, if sanctioned, would make elections a farce; but such is not the law. The duty of a canvassing board is to count the votes returned by the proper officers, and it has no discretion in the premises, the duties being purely ministerial. Hagge v. State, 10 Neb. 51;S. C. 4 N. W. REP. 375;State v. Hill, 10 Neb. 58;S. C. 4 N. W. REP. 514;State v. Stearns, 11 Neb. 102; S. C. 7 N. W. REP. 743.
But it is claimed on behalf of the defendants that, even if the returns from Long Pine were improperly excluded, still the relator has an adequate remedy by contest, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booten v. Pinson
...§§ 59 and 371; 15 Cyc. 296; State ex rel. v. Dillon, 32 Fla. 545, 14 So. 383, 22 L.R.A. 124; Wheeler v. Brady, 15 Kan. 26; State v. Peacock, 15 Neb. 442, 19 N.W. 685; Belles v. Burr, 76 Mich. 1, 43 24; Mayor, etc. v. Shattuck, 19 Colo. 104, 34 P. 947, 41 Am.St.Rep. 208; Plummer v. Yost, 144......
-
State v. McCoy
... ... also must be one that the defendant may properly do." ... People. ex rel. Besse vs. The Village of Crotty, 93 ... Ill. 180 ... Ward, ... for the relators, ... mandamus. State ex rel. Whitmore vs. Peacock et al., ... 15 Neb. 442, 19 N.W. 685; Cooley, Const. Lim. 782 ... J ... B ... ...
-
State ex rel. Leidigh v. Holcomb
... ... Lancaster County Bank, 8 Neb. 218; ... In re Appropriations, 25 Neb. 665; Van Horn v ... State, 46 Neb. 62; State v. Whittemore, 12 Neb ... 252; State v. Ream, 16 Neb. 681; Stricklett v ... State, 31 Neb. 674; Smails v. White, 4 Neb ... 353; Sovereign v. State, ... of this court. ( State v. Stearns , 11 Neb. 104, 7 ... N.W. 743; State v. Peacock , 15 Neb. 442, 19 N.W ... 685; State v. Matley , 17 Neb. 564, 24 N.W. 200; ... State v. Farney , 36 Neb. 537, 54 N.W. 862.) ... ...
-
Smith v. Lawrence
...v. Cameron, 39 Ind. 488; Moore v. Kessler, 59 Ind. 152; State v. Gibbs, 13 Fla. 55; People v. Scheilling, 95 N.Y. 124; State v. Peacock, 15 Neb. 442, 19 NW 685; People v. Nordheim, 99 Ill. 563; Haggerty v. Arnold, 13 Kan. 367; Brower v. O'Brian, 2 Ind. It is further contended by the appella......