TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tutt v. Hawkins

John D. Tutt v. George C. Hawkins

Tutt v. Hawkins, 73 N.W. 692 (Neb. 1898)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 3, 1898
Docket
No. 7719
Judges
Ryan
Citations
73 N.W. 69253 Neb. 3671898 Neb. LEXIS 400
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Elections: Ballots: Intention oe Elector. The intention of an elector must be ascertained from his ballot, and any inaccuracies in the preparation of such ballot cannot be urged for the first time after an election, to defeat the clearly expressed intention of the voter.
Summary
Appeal from the district court of Cass county.' Heard below before Chapman, J.

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

Opinion of the Court — Ryan

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

Ryan, C.

There was filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Cass county a petition in which the plaintiff John D. Tutt alleged that at the municipal election held in the city of Plattsmouth on April 3, 1894, the whole number of votes cast for councilman of the Fifth ward was 194, of which 79 were for William Slater, 49 were for George C. Hawkins, the contestee, 40 were for said John D. Tutt, and 26 were for Edwin Bates;.that upon a canvass of said votes made by the city council of said city William Slater and George C. Hawkins were declared elected. It was futher alleged in the petition that the whole number of votes counted for councilman to fill *368 a vacancy was 66, of which Tutt received 40 and Edwin Bates 26. By the answer of the contestee it was asserted that the votes cast for councilman for the Fifth ward were not canvassed with reference to filling a vacancy, but it was alleged that the four candidates were competitors for the office of councilman for' said ward, without reference to whether the candidacy was for the entire or for the unexpired term, and that, relying upon precedent, the candidate receiving the highest number of votes held the full term and the candidate receiving the next highest vote held the unexpired term. We need not consider the issues at greater length, for the question to be determined is whether or not it was proper to follow the alleged precedent. The official ballot with reference to councilman for the Fifth ward was printed as follows:

“Edwin Bates (to fill vacancy) Republican

“George O. Hawkins Republican

“Wm. Slater Democrat

“J. D. Tutt (to fill vacancy) Democrat”

It was correctly recited in the petition that Hawkins received 49 while Tutt received but 40 votes; but a reference to the form of ballot cast shows that the electors were not voting for them as rivals for the same office. The intention of the voter must be gathered from the ballot which he actually casts and cannot be defeated by evidence that the ballots were not prepared in accordance with the intention of a political convention by which one of the nominations was made. After an election held without, objection to the form of the ballot it is too late to question the result. (State v. Norris, 37 Neb. 299.) The district court erred in reaching the conclusion which it did and its judgment is accordingly reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

1904: 11907: 11919: 11934: 11938: 119042026peak 1904 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mehling v. Moorehead14 N.E.2d 15 (Ohio 1938)
  2. State ex rel. Dithmar v. Bunnell110 N.W. 177 (Wis. 1907)
  3. State ex rel. Hunt v. Stafford97 N.W. 921 (Wis. 1904) · Concurrence
  4. State ex rel. Hughes v. Hogeboom173 N.W. 589 (Neb. 1919)
  5. Thompson v. James253 N.W. 431 (Neb. 1934) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Mehling v. Moorehead14 N.E.2d 15 (Ohio 1938)
  2. Thompson v. James253 N.W. 431 (Neb. 1934) · Dissent
  3. State ex rel. Hughes v. Hogeboom173 N.W. 589 (Neb. 1919)
  4. State ex rel. Dithmar v. Bunnell110 N.W. 177 (Wis. 1907)
  5. State ex rel. Hunt v. Stafford97 N.W. 921 (Wis. 1904) · Concurrence

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
State ex rel. Crawford v. Norris, 55 N.W. 1086 (Neb. 1893) 22

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