Coulehan v. White

53 A. 786, 95 Md. 703, 1902 Md. LEXIS 207
Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided December 17, 1902·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

With the exception of the rulings in relation to class 4 the rulings and order appealed from will be affirmed for the reasons given in the opinion of the Court below.

In our opinion the ballots included in class four were erroneously rejected and'should have been counted, because they were not illegally marked within the rule laid down in Duvall v. Miller, 94 Md. 697. Inasmuch as the counting of the ballots in class 4, instead of rejecting them makes no change in the result, but only adds to the majority of the candidate declared elected by the Court below, the judgment will be affirmed without a new trial. Jtidgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Coulehan v. White, 53 A. 786, 95 Md. 703, 1902 Md. LEXIS 207 (Md. 1902).

53 A. 786 (Coulehan v. White) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pelagatti v. Board of Supervisors of Elections
682 A.2d 237 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1996)
Lamb v. Hammond
518 A.2d 1057 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1987)
Mayor of Landover Hills v. Brandt
85 A.2d 449 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1967)
McNulty v. Board of Supervisors of Elections
224 A.2d 844 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1966)
Mahoney v. Board of Supervisors of Elections
108 A.2d 143 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1954)
Hammond v. Love
49 A.2d 75 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1946)
Roe v. Wier
28 A.2d 471 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1942)
Waters v. Heaton
4 N.E.2d 41 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1936)
Fuerst v. Semmler
149 N.W. 115 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1914)
Warfield v. Vandiver
60 A. 538 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1905)