People ex rel. Fiske v. Schum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Fiske v. Schum

181 A.D. 717, 168 N.Y.S. 967, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4032

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 16, 1918

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D. 717 (People ex rel. Fiske v. Schum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Fiske v. Schum, 181 A.D. 717, 168 N.Y.S. 967, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4032 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In the ballot marked with the word “ Fiske ” the inspectors might have found an intent to vote for the relator, but they did not so find, and instead, agreed on a separate return, which appeared to treat such vote as not for the relator. As there was no protest in regard to this ballot, we agree that after the inspectors had failed to find the voter’s intent to be for relator, the court in the original proceeding was not empowered to count this vote for the relator, and the order of December 26, 1917, must be affirmed, but without costs.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in 181 Appellate Division, 702, decided herewith, we are of opinion that the Denton challenge was not such a protest as authorized the subsequent orders for a recount and recanvass, and that, therefore, such order of January 7, 1918, must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Jenks, P. J., Rich, Putnam, Blackmar and Kelly, JJ., concurred.

Order of December 26, 1917, affirmed, without costs. Order of January 7, 1918, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Per Curiam:

In the ballot marked with the word “ Fiske ” the inspectors might have found an intent to vote for the relator, but they did not so find, and instead, agreed on a separate return, which appeared to treat such vote as not for the relator. As there was no protest in regard to this ballot, we agree that after the inspectors had failed to find the voter’s intent to be for relator, the court in the original proceeding was not empowered to count this vote for the relator, and the order of December 26, 1917, must be affirmed, but without costs.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in 181 Appellate Division, 702, decided herewith, we are of opinion that the Denton challenge was not such a protest as authorized the subsequent orders for a recount and recanvass, and that, therefore, such order of January 7, 1918, must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Jenks, P. J., Rich, Putnam, Blackmar and Kelly, JJ., concurred.

Order of December 26, 1917, affirmed, without costs. Order of January 7, 1918, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D. 717, 168 N.Y.S. 967, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-fiske-v-schum-nyappdiv-1918.