In re De Groot

120 N.Y.S. 1121

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Order of the Special Term modified in the following particulars: Ballot Exhibit No. 20 is a void ballot, and should not have been counted for James McLaughlin. Ballot Exhibit No. 36 is a void ballot, and should not have been counted for William A. De Groot. Ballot Exhibit No. 29 is a void ballot, and should not have been counted for James F. McLaughlin. Ballot Exhibit No. 42 is a void ballot, and should not have been counted for James F. McLaughlin. The order, in so far as it is appealed from, as so modified, should be affirmed, without costs to either party, and a recount had in accordance with this decision. See, also, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1123.

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

In re De Groot, 120 N.Y.S. 1121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

120 N.Y.S. 1121 (In re De Groot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.