State ex rel. Cawley v. O'Hearn
Supreme Court of Vermont
Quo Warranto. Heard on petition, answer, replication, and testimony. It was claimed that fraudulent and illegal votes were cast for both parties.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Taft, J.
This is a complaint under chap. 74 R. L., for a quo warranto upon the relation of James A. Cawley against David J. O'Hearn, for usurping the office of trustee in the seventh ward in the village of Rutland. The election from which the controversy arises was held on the 28th day of April, 1886. A plurality of votes only was required for *719an election. The vote; as declared, stood as follows : O’Hearn, one hundred forty-two; Cawley, one hundred forty-one. O’Hearn was declared elected and received a certificate in due form. There were votes for one…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hyde v. BrushSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1867
3Cited by5 opinions
- Burke v. BeecherSupreme Court of Vermont · 1929
- Appelget v. BairdSupreme Court of Vermont · 1967
- Horton v. SullivanSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1913
- State ex rel. Turrill v. HinsdaleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1921
- Ferenczi's Petition, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1940