« PreviousContinue »
Powers v. Dahl (N. Y.).
..1079 Rosedale Ave. in City of New York, In re
576 Royal Colliery Co. V. Alwart Bros. Coal Co.
Prebster v. Henderson (Ind.).
691 Royal Indemnity Co., Moses v. (Ill.).. 554
Prescott v. Ayers (Ill.).
Public Service Commission for First Dist. Saltzsieder v. Saltzsieder (N. Y.)..
Public Service Commission of Indiana, Chi Samuels, Johnson v. (Ind.).
414 Sanders, Chicago, La S. & S. B. R. Co.
York Cent. R. Co. v. (N. Y.)... ..1078 Savoie, Byrne v. (Mass.).
..1078 Scarsdale Estates, Fairchild v. (N. Y.)....1060
Quinby's Estate, In re (N. Y.).
Schoeneck, City of New York v. (N. Y.)...1062
.....1081 Schott v. United States Printing Co. (N. Y.)1082
Reed v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. Securities Co., Chester County Guarantee
289 Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. (N. Y.)....1062
271 Security Trust Co. of Rochester, N. Y., v.
Renwick v. Macomber (Mass.).
720 Seidentopf, Haehnel v. (Ind. App.)... 422
Rice v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. (N. Y.)10S1 Settle v. Public Utilities Commission of
821 Shanahan v. Monarch Engineering Co. (N.
Richmond v. Kelsey (Mass.).
319 Shanker Metal Ceiling Co. v. Fort Mason-
Roach, Nichols v. (111.).
914 Shiloh Baptist Church. In re (N. Y.)... .1093
Roeschlein, Feingold v. (Ill.).
Smith, Durkee v. (N. Y.).......... ..1060 Stokes Co., De Bekker v. (N. Y.). . 1064
205 | Stone v. William M. Eisen Co. (N. Y.).. 44
Smith v. New England Cotton Yarn Co. Stump v. Burns (N. Y.).
Smith, People v. (I11.).
31 Supreme Lodge, K. P., V. Graham (Ind.
623 | Talcott, Newburger-Morris Co. v. (N. Y.) 816
Spreen v. Erie R. Co. (N. Y.).
..1019 Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co., Di Pa-
Stacy, In re (Mass.).
Standard Accident Ins. Co., In re (N. Y.). .1053 Toms v. Post & McCord (N. Y.).
State, Harper v. (Ind.).
4 Township of Honey Creek, White County,
State v. Maranda (Ohio).
State v. Morse (Ohio).
:.1040 Travis, People ex rel. Goldschmidt v. (N.
53 Travis, People ex rel. Queens County
State v. Richards (Ohio).
263 Tremont Theater Amusement Co. v. Bruno
State, Woodworth v. (Ind.).
86 Union Sanitary Mfg.Co. v. Davis (Ind.
191 United Construction & Supply Co., Conk-
County, Crittenberger v. (Ind. App.)... 225 United States Casualty Co. v. Griffis (Ind.) 83
750 | United States Drainage & Irrigation Co. v.
.1063 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Louisville & N.
Van Dusen v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. (Ind.)
Villard v. Villard (N. Y.).
789 Willoughby v. Brotherhood of Locomotive
Wabash R. Co. v. Todd (Ind.).
.1054 Wishard, Central Indiana R. Co. v. (Ind.) 970
Wanmer, People v. (111.)
....1015 Woods, People ex rel. Peabody v. (N. Y.)1079
Weis, People v. (111.).
Welliver v. Coate (Ind. App.).
775 Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins.
(185 Ind. 326)
registration of voters (Acts 1915, c. 126), orCITY OF SHELBYVILLE v. ADAMS. dered a complete registration on account of the
destruction of the pollbooks of a precinct, his (No. 22991.)
decision was not so palpably wrong as to war(Supreme Court of Indiana. Nov. 10, 1916.) rant interference therewith by mandamus to APPEAL AND ERROR O773(5)–BRIEF-FAIL- the name of one who failed to register, but
compel him to place on the registration books URE OF APPELLEE TO FILE-REVERSAL.
whose name had been on the destroyed books, Where, on an appeal presenting the ques-especially where the remedy was first invoked tion of validity of a city ordinance and involv- after the registration period had ended. ing matters of great public concern, appellee filed no brief, the judgment will be reversed,
(Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Mandamus, with instructions to set aside ruling in favor of Cent, Dig. § 151; Dec. Dig. 74(2).] appellee and for resubmission of the same. 3. MANDAMUS C 74(2) REGISTRATION OF (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Appeal and
VOTERS-DETERMINATION OF AUDITOR. Error, Cent. Dig. 88 3104, 3110; Dec. Dig. Ons
As the registration law (Acts 1915, c. 126) 773(5).)
invests the county auditor with the primary du
ty of determining the necessity of a complete Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby Coun- new registration of voters, his determination ty; Alonzo Blair, Judge.
that such complete registration be had, though Action by the City of Shelbyville againster election officers, could not be assailed by man.
erroneous, if acted on in good faith by the propWilliam Adams. From judgment for defend- date, after the registration period had ended, ant plaintiff appeals. Reversed, with instruc- to compel him to place on the registration books tions.
the name of a voter, registered for a prior
general election, the pollbooks of which had been R. W. Harrison, of Shelbyville, for appel destroyed, who failed to register. lant. Wray & Campbell, of Shelbyville, for
(Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Mandamus,
Cent. Dig. § 151; Dec. Dig. Om74(2).] appellee.
4. ELECTIONS 113–REGISTRATION OF VorMORRIS, J. This appeal presents the
ERS-ATTACK OF DETERMINATION OF COUN
TY AUDITOR. question of the validity of a city ordinance,
Where a county auditor determined that a and involves matters of great public concern. complete regi ation of voters was necessary, Appellee has filed no brief, and, because potwithstanding the books of a precinct had thereof, the judgment is reversed, with in. only was held,' after the end of the registration
supplemental registration structions to set aside the court's ruling on period no voter of the precinct could be heard appellee's demurrer, and for a resubmission to complain that complete registration was necof the same. See Burroughs V. Burroughs essary. (1913) 180 Ind. 380, 381, 103 N. E. 1, and au
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Elections,
Cent. Dig. 8 109; Dec. Dig. Om 113.) thorities cited.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Huntington (185 Ind. 305)
County; Wm. D. Hamer, Special Judge. EVISTON, County Auditor, v. STATE ex rel. Mandamus by the State, on the relation HARTER (No. 23175.) of Heber P. Harter, against Ovid E. Eviston,
From a (Supreme Court of Indiana. Nov. 2, 1916.) Auditor of Huntington County.
judgment for relator sustaining demurrer 1. ELECTIONS 106–REGISTRATION OF VOT-I to the answer, defendant appeals. Judgment ERS-DUTY OF AUDITOR.
It was the duty of the auditor of a county, reversed, with instructions to overrule deprevious to issuing notice of the time and place murrer. of the session of registration boards, to decide whether complete or supplemental registration
Cline & Cline and C. W. Watkins, all of was necessary.
Huntington, and A. G. Cavins and E. M. (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Elections, white, both of Indianapolis, for appellant. Cent. Dig. § 103; Dec. Dig. 106.)
C. K. Lucas, of Huntington, for appellee. 2. MANDAMUS 74(2) REGISTRATION OF VOTERS-DECISION OF COUNTY AUDITOR.
MORRIS, J. Mandamus action by apWhere a county auditor, following the interpretation of the committee appointed by the pellee against the appellant. The complaint, Governor to construe the registration law, as among other things, alleges that relator is, amended in 1915 to provide for a permanent and continuously has been for more than
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
two years, a bona fide resident of precinct “The names of the registered voters who failed numbered 3, in Huntington township, in to exercise the right of suffrage at the last Huntington county; that in 1914 he duly ed by comparing the registration books used for
general election next preceding shall be determinregistered for the general election of that the identification of voters and the books kept year, and voted at such election; that his by the poll clerks at the last general election name does not appear on the 1916 registra
next preceding.” tion books of said precinct; that on October
Section 6 of the act requires the county 11, 1916, he appeared before appellant audi auditor to give 10 days' notice of the time tor and filed his own affidavit to the effect and place of the session of registration that he registered and voted in the precinct boards, and provides for two kinds of notice, in 1914, and also filed the affidavits of two one where the registration is supplemental, freeholders of the precinct to the effect that and the other where complete. The statutory he had resided continuously in the precinct form of the latter is as follows: during the past two years; that he there "Every voter of the precinct is required to upon demanded of appellant that his name register at the session of the board, unless prebe entered on the registration books of the vented by sickness of himself, or his unavoidable precinct; that the demand was refused. absence from the county, or by reason of his be
ing quarantined. If he fails to so register he Appellant filed an answer, which, among other shall have no right to vote at the November things, avers that the pollbooks of said pre-election." cinct, of the 1914 election, were destroyed previous to September 24, 1916, by the clerk
Previous to August 1, 1916, the Governor of the circuit court; that there was no other of this state appointed three experienced official list of the persons who voted, at the lawyers to construe the registration law as 1914 election, in the precinct; that 15 days amended in 1915. The chairman of the Demprevious to October 9, 1910, he determined ocratic, Republican, and Progressive State and decided that, because of such facts, the Central Committee each nominated one of registration records of the precinct were un
the committee afterwards selected by the fit to be used in the 1916 registration, and Governor. This committee reported to the that it was necessary to have a complete reg- Governor, and its report was concurred in by istration, in the precinct, on October 9, 1916, the three state chairmen and published unof all the voters thereof; that, pursuant to der the authority of the State Board of Elec
tion Commissioners. Similar committees such determination, statutory notices were published and posted of a complete registra
have been heretofore appointed, and their tion; that a complete registration was had interpretations of new election laws have on October 9th, and relator did not register Parvin v. Wimberg (1891) 130 Ind. 561, 30
been carefully considered by the courts. See during the session of the board, either per- N. E. 790, 15 L. R. A. 775, 30 Am. St. Rep. sonally or by affidavit. The trial court sus
254. tained a demurrer to the answer, and appel
The report of this committee (1916) lant declined to further plead.
shows that, as it construed our registration Our registration law was amended, in 1915,
law, a complete new registration of all voters so as to provide for a permanent registra- destroyed, because, as it construed the law,
was required where the pollbooks had been tion of voters. Acts 1915, p. 530. plicable to the election of 1916, it contemplat- there would otherwise be no legal way to ed the use of the 1914 registration books as purge the registration books of the names of a basis, and the elimination therefrom of the persons who registered in 1914, but did not names of those not entitled to vote in 1916, that this construction of the law was adopted
vote at the subsequent election. It appears and adding thereto, by supplemental regis- by appellant, and he issued the statutory tration, the names of those acquiring the notice for a complete new registration. Such right to vote by moving into the precinct, registration was held on October 9th, and reaching the age of 21 years, etc. Section 1 relator failed to register, and failed to make of the amended act contains this proviso:
any objection to the method bursued until * Provided, that in the event that the after the legal adjournment of the board. registration books of any precinct shall have On October 11th when the registration period been destroyed, or mutilated, or are inaccessible, or are for any other reasonable cause unfit was ended, he sought to have his name enterto be used, there shall be a registration of all ed on the registration books, on a theory invoters resident within such precinct, and every consistent with that adopted by the auditor voter who is a resident of any such precinct and acted on by the registration board and shall be required to appear in person at a session of the registration board and announce
voters. his name, and present his application and be  We do not deem it necessary to discuss duly registered, ** at some session of the at length the proper construction of the law. registration board, prior to the general election. Acts 1915, p. 530.
It was the duty of the auditor, previous to
the issuance of notice, to decide whether The act requires that a voter, who duly complete or supplemental registration was registered in 1914, but failed to vote at the necessary. He made a decision which relaelection of that year, may not vote now with tor claims was erroneous, and not binding out again registering. Section 8 of the act on him, but relator stood by, notwithstand