Rogers v. Lawrence

Michigan Supreme Court

Rogers v. Lawrence

235 N.W. 265, 253 Mich. 594

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 10, 1931

DocketCalendar 35,650

StatusPublished

This text of 235 N.W. 265 (Rogers v. Lawrence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rogers v. Lawrence, 235 N.W. 265, 253 Mich. 594 (Mich. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Gilbert L. Daane and A. J. Rogers were rival candidates for nomination as a member of tbe State board of agriculture at tbe Republican State convention, held in the city of Kalamazoo, on March 6,1931. Their names were presented, a ballot taken, and the chairman of the convention announced that Gilbert L. Daane had been nominated.

It is claimed that Mr. Rogers had a majority of the votes cast, and this was discovered after the convention adjourned. We are asked by Mr. Rogers to direct the chairman and secretary of the State central committee to certify his name as the nominee; and we are also asked by Mr. Daane to direct certification of his name as the nominee.

We are of opinion that, in the absence of fraud or oppression or a reconsideration by the convention, we may not recanvass the vote taken, and the announcement of the chairman controls, and the chairman and secretary of the State central committee should certify the nominee announced by the chairr man of the convention.

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

Per Curiam.

Gilbert L. Daane and A. J. Rogers were rival candidates for nomination as a member of tbe State board of agriculture at tbe Republican State convention, held in the city of Kalamazoo, on March 6,1931. Their names were presented, a ballot taken, and the chairman of the convention announced that Gilbert L. Daane had been nominated.

It is claimed that Mr. Rogers had a majority of the votes cast, and this was discovered after the convention adjourned. We are asked by Mr. Rogers to direct the chairman and secretary of the State central committee to certify his name as the nominee; and we are also asked by Mr. Daane to direct certification of his name as the nominee.

We are of opinion that, in the absence of fraud or oppression or a reconsideration by the convention, we may not recanvass the vote taken, and the announcement of the chairman controls, and the chairman and secretary of the State central committee should certify the nominee announced by the chairr man of the convention.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 N.W. 265, 253 Mich. 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-lawrence-mich-1931.