TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wyman v. Lemon

W. G. WYMAN v. JOHN B. LEMON

Wyman v. Lemon, 51 Cal. 273 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1876
Docket
No. 4987
Citations
51 Cal. 273
Syllabus
Mabk on Ballot Cast at Election.—If the elector uses ink to scratch names from his ballot and by that means the ballot becomes discolored, such discoloration is not a mark upon the ballot which will authorize the judges of election to refuse to count the vote. Idem.—Such mark is not a mark on the ballot designed to distinguish it from other ballots, or to impart knowledge of the person who voted it.
Summary
Appeal from the County Court of Solano County. Wyman and Lemon were candidates for the office of county treasurer of the county of Solano, at the general election in the fall of 1875. The canvass of the returns by the Board of Supervisors gave Wyman one thousand six hundred and thirty votes, and Lemon one thousand six hundred and thirty-three votes. Lemon received the certificate of election and Wyman commenced an action in the County Court contesting the election. Ballots were counted for Lemon upon which the elector had scratched other names with ink, and the ink thus used had discolored the ballot. Wyman objected to these votes being counted, and relied on sections 1206 and 1207 of the Political Code as authority to sustain his objection. These sections provide that when any ballot found in a ballot-box bears upon it, or upon the outside thereof, any impression, device, color, or thing, designed to distinguish such ballot from other ballots, or to impart knowledge of the person who voted such ballot, it shall be rejected. The court confirmed the election of Lemon and Wyman appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court:

The “impression, device, color or thing,” which, if borne on the outside of the ballot, must, under the provisions of *275 the Political Code, cause its rejection, must be “designed to distinguish such ballot from other legal ballotsThe discoloration appearing upon the ballots counted for the respondent here is not shown, nor does it appear to have been “designed,” but resulted from the use of ink by the elector in scratching his ballot. The use of ink for that purpose is expressly permitted to the elector by the Code, and the discoloration of the ballot, which naturally ensued from its use, cannot be held to have deprived him of his vote.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1891: 11892: 11898: 118912026peak 1891 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rutledge v. Crawford27 P. 779 (Cal. 1891)
  2. Haupt v. Burton55 P. 110 (Mont. 1898)
  3. State ex rel. Law v. Saxon30 Fla. 668 (1892)

Most recent

  1. Haupt v. Burton55 P. 110 (Mont. 1898)
  2. State ex rel. Law v. Saxon30 Fla. 668 (1892)
  3. Rutledge v. Crawford27 P. 779 (Cal. 1891)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list