Swepston v. Barton
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Crittenden Circuit Court. Hon. C. E. Boesttea, Circuit Judge. The demurrer to the petition and the motion to quash ought to have been sustained, because: 1. The sixth ground is the only one tenable, and it does not change the result. Mann v. Cassidy, Brightly Lead. Cas. on Hleetions, p. 351. 2. There is no fraud charged, and irregularities, in the absence of fraud, will not vitiate.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Crittenden Circuit Court. Hon. C. E. Boesttea, Circuit Judge. The demurrer to the petition and the motion to quash ought to have been sustained, because: 1. The sixth ground is the only one tenable, and it does not change the result. Mann v. Cassidy, Brightly Lead. Cas. on Hleetions, p. 351. 2. There is no fraud charged, and irregularities, in the absence of fraud, will not vitiate. The People v. Cook, ib., 423, 270. 3. A majority vote for a disqualifiéd candidate does not elect the next highest. The Commonwealth v. Curly, ib., 144' 4. The object of the law is to secure to every…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
At the general election in 1882, Swepston and Barton were opposing candidates for the office of Sheriff of Crittenden County. The returns showed Swepston’s election by a majority of 165 votes, and he was commissioned. Bai’ton instituted a contest in the County Court, and was successful there, as also in the Circuit Court, on appeal, where he recovered a judgment of ouster against Swepston.
There is in the record no paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions, and to be signed by the presiding judge, which appears either from the indorsement of the clerk or from any record entry to have been…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- The People v. . CookNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- People ex rel. Williams v. CicottMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. VailSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Saunders v. HaynesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Carson v. McPhetridgeIndiana Supreme Court · 1860
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Davis v. HoltSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991
- Files v. HillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
- Murphy v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1911
- Tate-Smith v. CupplesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003
- Madden v. Board of Election CommissionersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.