Walker v. Sanford

1 S.E. 424, 78 Ga. 165
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 18, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 1 S.E. 424 (Walker v. Sanford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Walker v. Sanford, 1 S.E. 424, 78 Ga. 165 (Ga. 1887).

Opinion

Blandford, Justice.

There are two questions made by this record: (1st) Is an election held by three persons, one of whom is neither an ordinary, justice of the peace nor freeholder, valid and legal? (2d) Is an election legal which is held at a place different from that which has been established according to law as an election precinct? The court below held the election-held by a person who was not an officer nor a freeholder was invalid, and that the ordinary did right to refuse to count the vote of such an election; and also that the ordinary did right to refuse to count the votes of an election held at a place different from that which had been established as an election precinct. This decision is excepted to and error thereon assigned to this court.

1. An election was held in the county of Baldwin, under the act of 1885, for and against the sale of spirituous liquors, and at one precinct, one Farrar acted as a manager, and he was neither an officer nor a freeholder ; it was also held at another place, which place was three miles from the place which had been established as an election precinct. Upon a contest, under the act, all questions of law and fact were, by the consent of parties, referred to his honor, Hon. Thomas G. Lawson, the presiding judge, for his determination, and he ruled as before set forth. We think the case was properly ruled and decided by the court below, and that any other ruling would have been errone[167]*167ous, and that our own code determines every question in this case. Section 1282 provides that persons qualified to hold elections are ordinaries, justices of the peace and freeholders; that there must be three superintendents. Farrar, who was a superintendent and one of the three superintendents who held the election at one precinct, was not a freeholder or officer authorized to manage and superintend an election, was not qualified to hold the election under the code; consequently, the election was not legally held at this precinct. There must be three superintendents, and they must be qualified as prescribed by the code; if not, the election is invalid, and the vote should not be counted.

2. By section 1334 of the code, it is enacted: “No election shall be defeated for non-compliance with the requirements of law, if held at the proper time and place by persons qualified to hold them. . . .” This clause contains a negative pregnant, it being big with the contrary proposition, that the election' shall be defeated if not held at the proper time and place, and by persons qualified to hold them; and this is what the statute means. It is, therefore, clear that the election held at Butts’ instead of Pugh’s, the proper place established for such purpose, was likewise invalid. So we think the court below did right in affirming the action of the ordinary in throwing out and refusing to count the vote held at these two precincts, the result being to give a majority in favor of “against the sale.”

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

Related

Committee for New Cobb County Revenue v. Brown
185 S.E.2d 534 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1971)
Smiley v. Gaskin
154 S.E.2d 740 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Davis v. Page
125 S.E.2d 60 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1962)
Mangum v. Dorn
121 S.E.2d 145 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1961)
Hughes v. Griner
65 S.E.2d 24 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
New v. State
63 S.E.2d 671 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Freeman v. Callaway
141 S.E. 312 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)
Taylor v. Nuetzel
295 S.W. 873 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1927)
Semke v. Wiles
1924 OK 221 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Wallace v. Excise Board of Bryan County
1923 OK 407 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Johnston v. Bradshaw
94 S.E. 268 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Goree v. Cahill
1912 OK 706 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Elvick v. Groves
118 N.W. 228 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1908)
Cooper v. Nisbet
45 S.E. 692 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Slate v. Mayor of Blue Ridge
38 S.E. 977 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)
Drake v. Drewry
35 S.E. 44 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 S.E. 424, 78 Ga. 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-sanford-ga-1887.