State ex rel. Eble v. Leavitt

49 N.W. 1097, 33 Neb. 285, 1891 Neb. LEXIS 144
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 23, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 N.W. 1097 (State ex rel. Eble v. Leavitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska 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. Eble v. Leavitt, 49 N.W. 1097, 33 Neb. 285, 1891 Neb. LEXIS 144 (Neb. 1891).

Opinion

Maxwell, J.

The relator alleges in his petition that “he is a bona fide resident of the state of Nebraska, and has been for more than twenty years last past; that he is a citizen of the United States and a duly and legally qualified elector of the state of Nebraska; that he has resided in the county of Madison, and that portion of said county known and called Norfolk precinct; that he has so resided therein for more than ten years last past, and is entitled to the privilege of casting his vote at the coming general election to be held in this state on the 3d day of November, A. D. 1891.

“ II. That the city of Norfolk, which is situated within the boundaries of said Norfolk precinct, as aforesaid, is a city of the second class having more than 2,500 inhabitants ; that it is duly organized as such, and is exercising all the rights, duties, privileges, and franchises of such city; that the said city is situated within the boundaries -of Norfolk precinct, which said precinct comprises a large amount of territory lying outside of the city limits of said city, and which said territory has residing therein and in the said precinct a large number of legal voters and electors, to-wit, more -than 300 in number, who reside outside of the city limits of the said city; that said Norfolk precinct is one of the voting precincts of said county of Madison, duly established by the board of county commissioners thereof; that it comprises a portion of said county six miles square, and that the said city of Norfolk, above [287]*287mentioned, is situated within the said territory and comprises only a small portion thereof, and but a small portion of the said territory lies within the incorporate limits of the said city.

“III. That the said city of Norfolk is divided into wards and voting precincts, as provided by law, to-wit, the First, Second, Third, and Fourth wards, and that the defendants, William Leavitt, H. W. Winter, and A. H. Keisan, are the duly appointed, qualified, and acting board of registration for the first ward of said city of Norfolk; that E. G. Heilman, L. M. Gaylord, and W. F. Ahlman are the duly appointed, qualified, and acting board of registration in and for the Second ward in the said city; that August Satler, George Conevon, and C. G. Miller are the duly appointed, qualified, and acting board of registration in and for the Third ward in said city ; that E. G. Hyde, G. W. Beymer, and P. H. Nelson are the duly appointed, qualified, and acting board of registration in and for the Fourth ward in said city of Norfolk, aforesaid.

“IV. That on Wednesday, the 14th day of September, 1891, your relator, who resides outside of the incorporate limits of the said city of Norfolk, duly presented himself to each of the several boards of registration above named, and asked and demanded of the said boards and each of them, that he be registered as a legal voter to the end that he might be entitled to cast his vote at the coming general election above mentioned; that each of the said several boards of registration, and all of them, refused to register your relator as a legal voter 'in said city of Norfolk, and still refuses so to do; that the reason assigned for such refusal by each of the several boards of registration is, that your relator is not a resident of the city of Norfolk, and has not resided within any of the said wards or within the incorporate limits of the said city, and is therefore not entitled to register or cast his vote in the said city, at the said election;, that it is claimed on the part of the [288]*288said boards, and each of them, that the persons residing outside of the incorporate limits of the city of Norfolk, and within the precinct, as above stated, of which your relator is one, are not entitled to vote within the sajd city, or in any of the wards thereof, but that a separate polling place should be established outside of the incorporate limits of the said city, where your relator and all other legal electors of the said Norfolk precinct so residing outside of the said city limits, should cast their-votes; and that said persons, including your relator, are not required to register before voting, and are not entitled to be registered for that purpose.

“ Y. That the common council of the said city of Norfolk has never, in any manner, divided the territory lying outside of the incorporate limits of said city and within said Norfolk precinct as aforesaid, into wards or voting districts or precincts, and has not attached the same to any ward or wards within the said city; that the board of commisioners of said county has not established a polling place in said precinct outside of said city limits, but offer to do so if they have the right and authority so to do; that your relator desires to be registered as a legal voter so that he may cast his vote at the coming election; that he, in good faith, applied to the said boards of registration for that purpose, and that they wrongfully and unlawfully refused to register your relator and to permit him to be registered in any of the several wards of the said city, and that unless compelled so to do by a writ of mandamus of this court, your relator will be deprived of his privilege of casting his vote at said election, and that he has no adequate remedy at law in the premises.

“ Wherefore your relator, prays for a peremptory writ of mandamus directed to the respondents herein, commanding them to forthwith register the relator as a legal voter in the manner as provided by law.”

The defendants demur to the petition and the cause is submitted on the demurrer.

[289]*289Sec. 1, ch. 76, Comp. Stats., provides: “It shall be the duty of the mayor and council of any metropolitan city or city of the first class, or city of the second class having over 2,500 inhabitants, which shall include all portions of the voting precinct in which said city is situated, to cause to be prepared books for the registration of names and facts required by this act. Said books to be known by the general name of registers, and to be so arranged as to admit of the entering, under the name of each street or avenue in each election precinct, and the number of each dwelling on any such street or avenue, if there be a number thereto, and if there be no number, then under such definite description of the location of the dwelling place as shall enable it to be readily ascertained, and found, the names of all legal voters in each dwelling in each of said precincts, who shall apply for registration. Such register shall be ruled in parallel columns, in which, opposite the name of every applicant for registration, shall be entered the words and figures hereinafter provided in this act, and shall be of such size as to contain not less than 800 names, and so prepared that they may be used at each election in any city governed by the provisions of this act, until such time as in this act providing for the succeeding general registration, and shall on the inside be in form as follows, to-wit:

It will be seen that the power of the board of registration is confined to voters residing within the city. The-provision in the statute that the district “shall include all portions of the voting precinct in which said city is situ[290]*290ated,” does not extend the powers of the board so as to include voters residing beyond the limits of the city. It is designed to prevent any portion of the city from being omitted; in other words, the registration district shall include the whole city so that no voter shall be omitted.

Sec. 60, chap.

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

Related

League of Nebraska Municipalities v. Marsh
253 F. Supp. 27 (D. Nebraska, 1966)
State ex rel. Williams v. Moorhead
144 N.W. 1055 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 N.W. 1097, 33 Neb. 285, 1891 Neb. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-eble-v-leavitt-neb-1891.