Skip to main content
· 4/18/1911

State ex rel. Conrad v. Patterson

Citations

  • 84 Ohio St. (N.S.) 89

Syllabus

<p>No adequate provision by statute — For contest of township trustee election, when — Remedy afforded by Section 2966-39, Revised Statutes — Now Section 5090, General Code — Is not exclusive— Quo warranto is proper remedy — Disputed election of rival candidates — Question of counting certain marked ballots — Ballots locked in box and produced in court• — Court revises evidence of ballots — Relator’s petition dismissed — Election procediire and laws.</p> <p>1‘. Where there is no adequate provision made by statute for the contest of the election of township officers, the remedy afforded by Section 2966-39, Revised Statutes, now Section S090 of the General Code, is not exclusive, but quo warranto is a proper remedy for determining the legality of an election of township trustee.</p> <p>2. At an. election legally held for the election of township officers there were two rival candidates for the office of township trustee, and during the course of reading and counting the ballots cast for that office, disputes arose as to whether certain marked ballots should be counted for the respective candidates, and the judges of the election rejected all such marked ballots and the count so made resulted in the election of one of the candidates. The disputed ballots were not sealed up and returned to proper authority as provided in said section, and none of the ballots were burned, but were strung with all the other ballots, and locked up in the ballot box at the close of the election, -which box containing all ballots cast was delivered to the township clerk as required by law. In an action in quo warranto brought by the defeated to contest the election of the successful candidate, the township clerk, still having custody of the ballot box, was called as a witness to testify, and produced said ballot box in open court. It was shown that the ballots so locked up in the box had not been changed, marked or altered in any manner at any time after the box came into his custody. The co

Judges: Davis, Donahue, Johnson, Price, Shauck, Spear

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.