Taylor v. Nuetzel

Decision Date14 June 1927
Citation220 Ky. 510
PartiesTaylor v. Nuetzel et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court

DAVID R. CASTLEMAN, ALLEN P. DODD and LAWRENCE J. MACKEY for appellant.

ARTHUR B. BENSINGER, HARRIS W. COLEMAN, WALTER S. LAPP, WM. F. CLARKE, JR., HENRY J. STITES and HERMAN G. HANDMAKER for appellees.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE LOGAN.

Reversing.

This case, and its 33 companion cases, involve the determination of a contest of the 1925 election for city offices in the city of Louisville, and county offices in the county of Jefferson. These cases were heard together in the circuit court and disposed of by the chancellors in one joint opinion. The petition in each case was dismissed by the judgment of the chancellors. The contestants, who were the candidates of the Democratic party at said election, are the appellants on this appeal, and contestees, who were the candidates of the Republican party at the same election, are the appellees.

The basis of the contest as set up in the original petition was that a conspiracy was entered into by persons interested in the election of appellees, the object of which conspiracy was to procure their election by fraud, intimidation, and violence; and that the conspiracy was consummated and as a result thereof appellees obtained certificates of election. The details relating to the formation and execution of the conspiracy were set out at length in the petition. The answer of appellees denied either the existence or consummation of a conspiracy. The answer was filed December 5, 1925. On March 27, 1926, the appellants offered and were permitted to file an amended petition in which it was alleged that appellees violated sections 1565b-13 to 1565b-18, Ky. Stats., which is a part of what is known as the Corrupt Practices Act, in that they expended greater sums of money in procuring their election than were allowed by said sections, or that greater sums of money than those allowable under these sections were expended by others in their behalf with their knowledge. Upon final hearing the chancellors concluded that the amended petition should not have been allowed, as it came too late. It was stricken by the judgment of the chancellors. The ruling of the chancellors was correct. Grounds of contest must be set out in a petition filed within the time prescribed by the provisions of section 1596a-12, Ky. Stats., and the contestant must state all of his grounds of contest within the time so prescribed with the exceptions herein noted. He may amend his petition to enlarge the ground or grounds of his contest or to make it more definite and certain, but he must maintain in his amendments his connection with his original ground or grounds of contest. No new ground may be brought in.

It is suggested in argument by counsel for appellants that the post-election expense account of a candidate need not be filed until after the day for instituting a contest has passed, and that by the provisions of section 1565b-11, Ky. Stats., it may be alleged in the pleadings in a contest case that the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act have been violated by the candidate or by others in his behalf with his knowledge. It is argued that a contestant cannot set up in his petition any violation of the law shown...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Lilly v. O'Brien
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 6 Marzo 1928
    ... ... Colvin v. Mills, 214 Ky. 814, 284 S.W. 115. There is ... nothing in the decision of this court in Taylor v ... Nuetzel, 220 Ky. 510, 295 S.W. 873, that affects the ... principle decided in Colvin v. Mills, supra ...          We are ... ...
  • Gregory v. Stubblefield
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 3 Octubre 1958
    ...conclusion, is not sufficient to relieve appellant of the necessity of pleading specifically the details of the fraud. In Taylor v. Neutzel, 220 Ky. 510, 295 S.W. 873, relied on by appellant, the details relating to the formation and execution of the conspiracy to procure the election of ce......
  • Watts v. Bowen
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 17 Octubre 1933
    ... ... In such event the office shall be deemed vacant, with the ... same legal effect as if the person elected had refused to ... qualify." Taylor v. Nuetzel, 220 Ky. 510, 295 ... S.W. 873; Ferguson v. Gregory, 216 Ky. 382, 287 S.W ... 952; Marilla v. Ratterman, 209 Ky. 409, 273 S.W. 69 ... ...
  • Salyer v. Gross
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 9 Marzo 1934
    ... ... grounds of contest rely on these matters as independent ... grounds of contest. Cf. Taylor v. Nuetzel, 220 Ky ... 510, 295 S.W. 873. As heretofore pointed out, there simply ... was no evidence of a conspiracy in this record. Indeed, ... ...

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