People v. Loomis

8 Wend. 396
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1832
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 8 Wend. 396 (People v. Loomis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Loomis, 8 Wend. 396 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1832).

Opinion

By the Court, Nelson, J.

The town meeting of the town of Verona, in Oneida county, in March, 1830, resolved, in pursuance of the statute, to limit the number of constables for that year to four. The defendants whom the presiding officers of the town meeting determined were duly elected, it is conceded, had not a majority of votes over the relators, unless there are counted for them 176 ballots, on each of which were five names. The correctness of the decision of the presiding • officers depends upon the allowance of these ballots. There is one unanswerable objection to the admission of these ballots to a count, to wit, that one elector may vote for every candidate for the office of constable, if he may multiply the names [399]*399on the ballot beyond the number to be elected, and thereby ii effect cast two votes. Take the two tickets which appear t have been run in this ease-if one elector can cast a ballo containingfive names, he may one of eight, and thus vote (i he chooses to insert the names) for both tickets. It would b impossible for the presiding officers to select the four accord ing to the intention of the voters, and four only should b

The remedy must be entirely fruitless in this case, as the term of office of the defendants has long ago expired. If application had been made for the quo warranto, we should have denied it, as was done in The People v. Sweeting, 2 Johns. R. 184. Although judgment of ouster will be unavailing, and the damages, if a suggestion be made, must be very trifling, still 1 am of opinion we cannot suspend the judgment, as the revised statutes are imperative, and give to the prevailing parties costs. 2 R. S. 583, § 37; 585, § 48.

Judgment for the relators.

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

Related

People v. Harris
63 N.E.2d 17 (New York Court of Appeals, 1945)
Turpin v. Powers
192 S.W. 984 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1917)
State ex rel. Bumsted v. Henry
74 N.J.L. 790 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1907)
Albright v. Territory of New Mexico ex rel. Sandoval
79 P. 719 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1905)
People ex rel. Drew v. Rodgers
50 P. 668 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
People ex rel. Thorn v. Pangburn
35 N.Y.S. 655 (Superior Court of New York, 1895)
Montgomery v. O'Dell
22 N.Y.S. 412 (New York Supreme Court, 1893)
Misch v. Russell
12 L.R.A. 125 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1891)
Attorney-General Ex Rel. Libbey v. Megin
63 N.H. 378 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1885)
Hammer v. State
44 N.J.L. 667 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1882)
State ex rel. Hawes v. Pierce
35 Wis. 93 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1874)
People Ex Rel. Furman v. . Clute
52 N.Y. 576 (New York Court of Appeals, 1873)
People ex rel. Speed v. Hartwell
12 Mich. 508 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1864)
People v. Cook
14 Barb. 259 (New York Supreme Court, 1852)
People, ex rel. Eastman v. Seaman
5 Denio 409 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Wend. 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-loomis-nysupct-1832.