Woods v. State ex rel. McNerney
| Decision Date | 04 April 1895 |
| Docket Number | 7320 |
| Citation | 63 N.W. 23,44 Neb. 430 |
| Parties | JERRY D. WOODS v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, EX REL. JAMES C. MCNERNEY |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before HALL and TIBBETS, JJ.
REVERSED.
A. J Sawyer and A. W. Field, for plaintiff in error.
William Leese, contra.
This cause was submitted by agreement at the last term and a judgment reversing the order of the district court then announced. The facts established by the evidence are all shown by the written stipulation of the parties, and are, so far as essential to an understanding of the question presented, as follows The plaintiff in error, as clerk of Lancaster county, had prepared and caused to be printed the sample and official ballots for use by the electors of said county at the general election for the year 1894. Said ballots contained the names of all candidates for the several state offices certified to the plaintiff in error as county clerk by the secretary of state, and were, it is conceded, in all respects conformable to law except as hereafter mentioned. Certain candidates for state offices, including the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction, were, according to the certificate of the secretary of state, the nominees of two parties, to-wit, the people's independent party and the democratic party. In the preparation of the said ballots, the plaintiff in error allotted one line thereon to the name of each candidate, together with the party designations to which he was entitled, thus:
FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
VOTE FOR ONE.
Belle G. Bigelow, of Lincoln.
Prohibition
Rodney D. Dunphy, of Seward.
Straight Democrat
James N. Gaffin, of Colon.
Democrat and People's Independent
Robert E. Moore, of Lincoln.
Republican.
The defendant in error, who is the chairman of the people's independent party for Lancaster county, being dissatisfied with the form of the ballot, applied to the district court of said county for a writ of mandamus requiring the plaintiff in error, who was made the respondent therein, to cause the names of all candidates who had received more than one nomination to be followed by a brace with the names of the parties or principles represented by them on parallel lines to the right thereof. On a final hearing the district court made the following among other findings:
"We find and hold that the only legal way to prepare and print the ballots in such a case is to place a brace after the name of the candidate, and to place the names of the parties or principles represented by such candidate to the right of the brace, one above another, within the space allowed the name of the candidate on the ballot, thus:
FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. VOTE FOR ONE.
James N. Gaffin, of Colon. People's Independent. Democrat.
And we find and hold the method adopted by respondent to be an error in the printing of the sample and official ballots."
Judgment having been entered in accordance with the views expressed in the finding above set out, the cause was removed into this court for review upon the petition in error of the respondent.
It is not claimed that the ballot act contains any provision pertaining to the printing of the ballots aside from that found in section 14, which is, so far as material in this connection, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feight v. Mathers
... ... , the trial court, after finding 'that the pleadings are in such a state of confusion as to be in violation of the rules of pleading set forth in ... Horton v. State ex rel. Hayden, 63 Neb. 34, 88 N.W. 146.' Blue River Power Co. v Hronik, 116 ... ...
- Woods v. McNerney