Broaddus v. Mason
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 74 — CONTEST OE ELECTION APPEAL FROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT. 1. There was not a sufficient service of the notice of contest. (Civil Code, sec. 625; Election Law, art. 8, sec. 5; Eleece v. Goodrnm, 1 Duv., 306.) 2. The appellant did not enter his appearance and neither did, nor could. do, any act to give the contesting hoard jurisdiction.
Read the full summary
Case 74 — CONTEST OE ELECTION APPEAL FROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT. 1. There was not a sufficient service of the notice of contest. (Civil Code, sec. 625; Election Law, art. 8, sec. 5; Eleece v. Goodrnm, 1 Duv., 306.) 2. The appellant did not enter his appearance and neither did, nor could. do, any act to give the contesting hoard jurisdiction. (Batman v. Megman, 1 Met., 537.) 3. After the polls at a voting place have been closed, the ballots counted, the result certified and announced, and the ballots destroyed, there can not be a recount or any action by a contesting board to change that…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OP THE COURT.
Tlio question in this case is whether appellant, W. E. Broaddus, or appellee, "W. B. Mason, is entitled to office of Circuit Court Clerk of Garrard County, for which, they *423were opposing candidates at tlae general election held November 8, 1892.
The only complaint made by either party is of an alleged mistake in the return of officers of election at precinct No. 4, showing 146 votes for Broaddus and 136 for Mason. But the canvassing board accepting that return as true, examining.it in connection with others, found Broaddus had received highest…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Houston v. SteeleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1896
- Brumleve v. CronanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Tazwell v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 1913
- Browning v. LovittCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1906
- Crab Orchard Banking Co. v. SaundersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.