Seeley v. Killoran
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff, Charles E. Seeley, from an order of the District Court of Itasca County, Geo. W.'Holland, J., made March 17, 1893, refusing his motion for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff, Charles E. Seeley, from an order of the District Court of Itasca County, Geo. W.'Holland, J., made March 17, 1893, refusing his motion for a new trial. At the general election held November 8, 1892, Charles E. Seeley and J. F. Killoran were each candidates for the office of County Commissioner for the Second District in the County of Itasca, for the term commencing January 1, 1893. The Board of Canvassers of that county met and adjourned from day to day until November 17, 1892, when they determined and announced that Seeley received one hundred and ninety-nine (199) votes…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
This was a proceeding to contest an election for a county office, and. was dismissed by the District Court upon the ground that notice of appeal from the decision of the county canvassing board had not been entered with the clerk of said court within twenty days after the day of election, as provided by Laws 1891, ch. 4, § 76. In the case of Baberick v. Magner, 9 Minn. 232, (Gil. 217,) it was held that the statute then in force — the act of *293March 12, 1861 — provided hut one way of instituting an election contest, and that was by appeal to the District Court from the decision of the board of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Temple v. NorrisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Baberick v. MagnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1864
- Borer v. KolarsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
3Cited by4 opinions
- State ex rel. Shannon v. Judges of District Court of Eleventh Judicial DistrictSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Franson v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
- Odegard v. LemireSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- O'Dowd v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910