State v. Phillips

11 A. 274, 79 Me. 506, 1887 Me. LEXIS 109
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedNovember 22, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 11 A. 274 (State v. Phillips) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Phillips, 11 A. 274, 79 Me. 506, 1887 Me. LEXIS 109 (Me. 1887).

Opinion

Libbey, J.

At a meeting of the aldermen of the city of Ellsworth, held on the 15th of March, 1887, for the purpose of electing city officers, a ballot was taken for second assessor of taxes; and Albert G. Blaisdell, was declared elected and his election was entered of record. The meeting then took a recess till the next day, March 16, when, on motion therefor it was voted to reconsider the election of second assessor, and a new ballot was taken, and the respondent was declared elected. Blaisdell took the necessary oath of office on the first day of April, 1887.

On the foregoing facts the court held that Blaisdell was duly elected, and that the election of Phillips, the respondent, was void, and ordered judgment of ouster against him. To which rulings exception was taken.

We think the rulings of the court below correct. The election of assessors was required to be by ballot. While a municipal body having the power of election may set aside a ballot by which it appears that an election is made, for some irregularity or illegality before the election is declared, (Baker v. Cushman, 127 Mass. 105,) we are aware of no authority which holds that, when the election by ballot is declared and entered of record, it may be reconsidered at an adjourned meeting on a subsequent day, and a new election had. When the aldermen balloted and declared the election of Blaisdell, and it was recorded, their power over the election to that office was exhausted unless he should decline [508]*508to accept it. He did not decline to accept and the aldermen could not deprive him of the office except by removal in the manner provided by law. There being no vacancy in the office when the respondent was elected, his election was void.

Exceptions overruled. Judgment of ouster affirmed.

Peters, C. J., Walton, Danforth, Emery and Haskell, JJ., concurred.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Powers v. Curtis, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2003)
2003 Ohio 6104 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003)
Brewer v. Johnson
193 S.E. 778 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Lind v. Fish
262 N.W. 413 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1935)
Lazarus v. City of New York
151 Misc. 818 (New York Supreme Court, 1934)
MacAlister v. Baker
33 P.2d 469 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
State Ex Rel. Kempson v. Moore
67 S.W.2d 151 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1934)
North v. Wagner
249 N.W. 494 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1933)
Thorne v. Squier
249 N.W. 497 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1933)
City of Kankakee v. Small
147 N.E. 404 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1925)
People ex rel. McMahon v. Davis
209 Ill. App. 117 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1917)
State Ex Rel. Scofield v. Starr
63 A. 512 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1906)
State ex rel. Childs v. Wadhams
67 N.W. 64 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1896)
State ex rel. Holmes v. Finnerud
64 N.W. 121 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 A. 274, 79 Me. 506, 1887 Me. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-phillips-me-1887.