Massengale v. Lester
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 27—MANDAMUS— APPEAL PROM WHITLEY CIRCUIT COURT. The act of March 14, 1898, changing the lines of the third, fifth and seventh appellate court districts must he held valid, unless prohibited by the Constitution. Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 5th ed., pp. 105-6. Section 116 does not constitute such a prohibition. A change of district lines is not a redistriccing within the meaning of that section.
Read the full summary
Case 27—MANDAMUS— APPEAL PROM WHITLEY CIRCUIT COURT. The act of March 14, 1898, changing the lines of the third, fifth and seventh appellate court districts must he held valid, unless prohibited by the Constitution. Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 5th ed., pp. 105-6. Section 116 does not constitute such a prohibition. A change of district lines is not a redistriccing within the meaning of that section. Compare sec. 33 with sec. 116. The construction of Article 2, sec. 6, of the Constitution of 1849 shows practically that the legislative intent is as here contended for. Contest between…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE GUFFY
delivered the opinion of the court.
Tlie appellees instituted this action in tlie Wliitley Circuit Court against E. G. Massengale, as clerk of the Whitley County Court, the object being to obtain a mandamus to compel him to place upon the official ballot of Whitley county the names of such person or persons as might be legally certified by the governing power of the political parties, or by the State, or by petition, as provided by law. The averments of the petition are as follows: “The plaintiff above named say that they are residents of, and legal voters in, Whitley county, Ky.,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ragland v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- Scott v. McCrearyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Bettes v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1939
- Fields, Com. Atty. v. Nickell, Com. Atty.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1933