Como v. Sprague
| Decision Date | 27 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 428.,428. |
| Citation | 126 A. 378 |
| Parties | COMO v. SPRAGUE, Secretary of State. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Petition for writ of mandamus by Michael Como against Ernest L. Sprague, Secretary of State. Petition denied.
George A. Breaden, of Providence, for petitioner.
Green, Curran & Hart, of Providence, for various respondents.
Herbert L. Carpenter, Atty. Gen., for respondent Sprague.
STEARNS, J. Petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, secretary of state, to accept the certificate of nomination of petitioner for the office of representative in the General Assembly, and to cause his name to be placed on the official ballot for election.
There is not much dispute as to the facts. October 9, 1924, a caucus of the Democratic party was held in the Third Assembly district of Cranston, conformably to a call for such caucus properly issued by the executive committee of the Democratic state central committee. In the call, in accordance with the rules of the party, William Evans was appointed by the executive committee to preside at the caucus and Emile Mormile to act as secretary. The caucus was held and continued from 8:15 to 11 p. m., when the balloting was concluded. The only candidates for the nomination were the petitioner and Joseph B. Connolly. The ballots were counted by tellers representing the two candidates. Michael Como received 96 votes and Joseph B. Connolly 38 votes. The result was reported by the tellers to the presiding officer, Evans, who, without any attempt to announce the result, entertained a motion to adjourn, which was then, as Evans testified, passed by the Assembly. Evans then took the ballots and walked out of the hall, in company with a number of the electors. Thereupon, one Patrick O'Leary, without any formal vote, but with the consent of those remaining in the hall, assumed the position of presiding officer, and one John D'Amico acted as clerk of the meeting. O'Leary then announced the result of the balloting, declared Como to be the nominee of the caucus, and the meeting, without any formal adjournment, came to an end.
The petitioner claims that, by his refusal to announce the result, Evans vacated his office, and that the caucus then had the right to elect a presiding officer and continue its proceedings.
On the 14th of October, Evans as presiding officer, and Mormile as secretary, of said caucus, filed in the office of the secretary of state a certificate of nomination, to the effect that Joseph B. Connolly was the nominee of the caucus. On the 15th of October petitioner presented to the secretary of state a certificate of the nomination of Michael Como by said caucus, which was signed by O'Leary as presiding officer and by D'Amico as clerk of said caucus. The secretary of state refused to receive this certificate and petitioner, by this proceeding, now seeks to compel him to receive it.
Thereafter, and prior to the hearing on this petition, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Nielsen
...in Political Party Disputes: The Political Thicket Reconsidered, 22 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 622, 636 (1975). See also Como v. Sprague, 46 R.I. 235, 126 A. 378 (1924). Only where the challenged action of a political party infringes on a specific constitutional or statutory right, usually the right to......
-
Cullen v. Auclair
...in Political Party Disputes: The Political Thicket Reconsidered, 22 U.C.L.A. L.Rev. 622, 636 (1975). See also Como v. Sprague, 46 R.I. 235, 126 A. 378 (1924). "Only where the challenged action of a political party infringes on a specific constitutional or statutory right, usually the right ......
-
Sisson v. Lisle
...it is too late." Whether certain statutes relating to elections are mandatory or directory was considered in the cases of Como v. Sprague, 46 R. I. 235,126 A. 378; Bryer v. Sevigney, 42 R. I. 187, 106 A. 155; Hoxsie v. Edwards, 24 R. I. 338, 53 A. 128; State v. Carroll, 17 R. I. 591, 24 A. ......
-
Dupre v. St. Jacques
...voters, such action would be sustained by this court. Attorney Gen. v. Clarke, supra; Stone v. Waterman, supra; Como v. Sprague, Secretary of State, 46 R. I. 235, 126 A. 378. Respondents contend that petitioners cannot raise the question of the invalidity of the nomination paper after the e......