State ex rel. King v. Solomon
This text of 117 N.W. 348 (State ex rel. King v. Solomon) 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.
Opinion
The relator was a candidate for the office of village trustee of the village of Bladen at the election held April 2, 1907. He and one- other candidate received an equal number of votes, whereupon by agreement they cast lots to determine which of the two should hold the office. The result was favorable to relator. He now seeks a peremptory order to compel the village board to issue to him a certificate of election. Our statutes nowhere provide for the selection by lot of a village trustee when two candidates receive an equal number of votes. It was incompetent, therefore, for the relator and his adversary by agreement between themselves, or otherwise, to determine which one should hold the office. Neither was elected. Under these circumstances, relator was not entitled to the writ. Such has been the decision in each case we have been able to find where this question was before the court. Beck v. Board of Election Commissioners, 103 Mich. 192; State v. Adams, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 231; Hammock v. Barnes, 4 Bush (Ky.), 390; Reed v. Cosden, 1 Clarke & Hall Elec. Cas. (Md.) 353.
The judgment of the district court refusing the peremp[201]*201tory order and dismissing relator’s case was right, and we recommend that it be affirmed.
By the Court: For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
117 N.W. 348, 82 Neb. 200, 1908 Neb. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-king-v-solomon-neb-1908.