State ex rel. Bancroft v. Frear

128 N.W. 1068, 144 Wis. 79, 1910 Wisc. LEXIS 367
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 6, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 128 N.W. 1068 (State ex rel. Bancroft v. Frear) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Bancroft v. Frear, 128 N.W. 1068, 144 Wis. 79, 1910 Wisc. LEXIS 367 (Wis. 1910).

Opinions

[84]*84On October 15, 1910, the following decision and dissent were filed:

Pee Curiam.

The following propositions are decided in this case:

(1) The provisions of the general election law contained in sec. 34, Stats. (1898), relating to the filling of vacancies cansed by the declination, death, or other disability of a nominated candidate, are not imported into the primary election law and hence do not apply to primary elections.

(2) Under the allegations of the complaint it must be held that the fact of the death of Mr. Tucker was brought home to the knowledge of the great mass of the electors of the state before the holding of the primary, and that the great majority of the electors who placed a cross opposite his name upon the primary ballot did so with such knowledge.

(3) Votes which are in form cast for a deceased person by voters who know the fact of his decease cannot be considered as votes for or against any person, but must be regarded as so much blank paper.

(4) It follows that under the allegations of the complaint the relator received the greatest number of votes cast at the primary as a Republican candidate for the office of attorney general, and under subd. 1 of sec. 18 of the primary law is entitled to have his name placed upon the official ballot as such candidate.

Demurrer overruled, and judgment ordered for relator for relief by injunction as prayed in the complaint.

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

Related

Burgum v. Jaeger
2020 ND 251 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2020)
Stambaugh v. Price
532 S.W.2d 929 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1976)
Rollins v. Town of Gordonsville
215 S.E.2d 637 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1975)
State Ex Rel. Brunkhorst v. Krenn
98 N.W.2d 394 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1959)
Application of Toronto Pipe Line Co., Dallas, Texas
92 N.W.2d 554 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1958)
State Ex Rel. Schmidt v. White
44 N.W.2d 523 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1950)
Menashe v. Sutton
38 Haw. 449 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1950)
State Ex Rel. Sullivan v. Hauerwas
36 N.W.2d 427 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1949)
Thompson v. Talmadge
41 S.E.2d 883 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Road District-Jefferson Co. v. Sellars
180 S.W.2d 138 (Texas Supreme Court, 1944)
Penrose v. Whitacre
147 P.2d 887 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1943)
State Ex Rel. Van Schoyck v. Board of County Com'rs
131 P.2d 278 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1942)
Anderson v. Cook, Acting County Clerk
130 P.2d 278 (Utah Supreme Court, 1942)
State Ex Rel. Wolff v. Geurkink
109 P.2d 1094 (Montana Supreme Court, 1941)
District Party Committee v. Ryan
106 P.2d 261 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1940)
Davies v. Wilson
294 N.W. 288 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1940)
State ex rel. Kunz v. Wendt
273 N.W. 72 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1937)
Blaine v. Board of Supervisors
35 P.2d 517 (California Supreme Court, 1934)
State ex rel. La Follette v. Kohlee
200 Wis. 518 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 N.W. 1068, 144 Wis. 79, 1910 Wisc. LEXIS 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bancroft-v-frear-wis-1910.