Watson v. Gattis
| Decision Date | 11 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | 4-3236 |
| Citation | 65 S.W.2d 911,188 Ark. 376 |
| Parties | WATSON v. GATTIS |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District; J. O. Kincannon Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed, and cause dismissed.
Cochran Arnett & Woolsey, for appellant.
G C. Carter, for appellee.
An annual school election was held in. School District No. 39 of Franklin County for the purpose of voting the school tax and of electing three school directors for the terms of one, two and three years, respectively. The election returns, including the poll books, tally sheets and ballots, were returned by the election officers to the county court, to canvass the returns and declare the result as required by act 247 of the Acts of 1933, page 778.
The tally sheets showed the following candidates for directors had received the number of votes set opposite their names: Jess Reaves, 24; C. A. Kuykendall, 26; J. R. Gattis, 28; Henry Soller, 22; Loyd Matthews, 24; Earnest Carpenter, 23. The tally sheets did not show the length of the terms for which the candidates had been voted, but on the back of the tally sheets was this notation: "Henry Soller, one year; Loyd Matthews, two years; Earnest Carpenter, three years. "
The county judge made an examination of the tally sheets and of the ballots, and found that only 17 of the voters had designated on their ballots the length of the terms for which the various candidates were voted, and of these 15 had voted for Henry Soller, for one year, Loyd Matthews, for two years, and Earnest Carpenter, for three years. The county court thereupon issued certificates of election to these persons for one, two and three years, respectively, and they qualified as directors.
Thereafter Reaves, Kuykendall and Gattis filed in the circuit court a petition for a writ of mandamus against the county judge requiring him to issue certificates of election to Gattis for three years; to Kuykendall for two years, and to Reaves for one year. It was alleged that, although Reaves and Matthews had received the same, number of votes, the latter was not eligible.
The circuit court made a finding, which the testimony supports, to the effect that when the balloting began it was agreed by the electors then present that the candidate receiving the highest number of votes should be regarded as having been elected for the three-year term; the one receiving the next largest number of votes should be regarded as having been elected to the two-year term, and the candidate receiving the third largest number of votes should be regarded as having been elected to the one-year term. This agreement was announced to electors who came in later, but in the afternoon a judge of the election wrote upon the blackboard in the school room where the election was being held the names of three candidates and opposite their names he wrote the terms for which they were candidates, one, two and three years, respectively, and 17 votes appear to have been cast in accordance with that notation.
It was the opinion of the circuit judge that the agreement set out above should be enforced, and that the ballots should be interpreted with reference to it, and upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitley v. Cranford
...on an adversarial basis, it might have been developed that we have no statute providing for such a remedy, and in Watson v. Gattis, 188 Ark. 376, 65 S.W.2d 911 (1933), in discussing the language of an earlier, but comparable, constitutional provision, we wrote, "The elector himself would no......
-
Girley v. Wood, 75--58
...the extraordinary writ of mandamus, or compel it to reverse its ruling. See Burks v. Mobley, 245 Ark. 43, 430 S.W.2d 859; Watson v. Gattis, 188 Ark. 376, 65 S.W.2d 911; Harrison v. Fulk, 128 Ark. 229, 193 S.W. 532; Maxey v. Coffin, 94 Ark. 214, 124 S.W. 729; McBride v. Hon, 82 Ark. 483, 102......
-
Dotson v. Ritchie
... ... Creek Drainage District v. Ivie, 168 Ark. 523, ... 271 S.W. 4; State ex rel. v. City of ... Marianna, 183 Ark. 927, 39 S.W.2d 301; Watson ... v. Gattis, 188 Ark. 376, 65 S.W.2d 911; Garland ... Power & Developing Company v. State Board of ... Railroad Incorporation, 94 Ark. 422, 127 ... ...
-
Rubens v. Hodges
...on an adversarial basis, it might have been developed that we have no statute providing for such a remedy, and in Watson v. Gattis, 188 Ark. 376, 65 S.W.2d 911 (1933), in discussing the language of an earlier, but comparable, constitutional provision, we wrote, "The elector himself would no......