THE STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. H. BISBEE, JR.,
v.
TH5 INSPECTORS OF ELECTION AT PRECINCT NO. 4 OF MADISON COUNTY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State sought a mandamus writ compelling election inspectors to make a proper return of votes cast at a precinct election for Congress. The Florida Supreme Court held that mandamus was inappropriate where the inspectors had already complied with statutory requirements by forwarding duplicate returns to the County Clerk, and those returns were lost in transit through no fault of the inspectors.
A peremptory mandamus would be fruitless and will not be granted under these circumstances. The court further suggested it was doubtful whether the inspectors could be required to make new returns even if they had the means to do so, since they had already complied with legal requirements by making and forwarding the original certificates.
“Held by the Court, that a peremptory mandamus would be fruitless and will not be granted under these circumstances.”
The core holding that mandamus is inappropriate when compliance with legal duties has already occurred and the loss resulted from intervening cause beyond the defendants' control.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElection inspectors at Precinct No. 4 in Madison County conducted an election for Representative in Congress where votes were cast for the relator. Th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandamus Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
Relator alleged that the respondents were inspectors of election at Precinct No. 4, in Madison county, at an election held for Representative in Congress, at which votes were cast for the relator, and that respondents had neglected to make due return of the votes cast at that precinct, and prayed that they he required to make a return to the County Clerk as required by statute.
Respondents made answer to an alternative writ that they had made and signed duplicate returns of the votes cast in due form, and had forwarded the same to be delivered to the County Clerk by one of their number, and that on the road the said returns were stolen from the messenger an'd have not been recovered, and they or either of them have no knowledge or information as to whether the said returns aTe now in existence or where they may be found. They further say they havé no memoranda of the vote cast for the candidates for the several offices voted for, and do not remember the said vote, and know of no means whereby they can correctly make a certificate or return of such votes.
Held'by the Court, that a peremptory mandamus would be fruitless and will not be granted under these circumstances. It was further intimated by the court, that as it appeared that the certificates or returns had been made and forwarded by fheir messenger, and to this extent they had complied with the requirements of the law, although the certificate had been lost or destroyed, and so had failed to reach the Cleric’s office, it was doubtful whether they could now be required to make other returns or certificates, even if they had the means of knowing the actual vote cast for the several candidates.
No issue was taken upon the answer or plea, and at the January term, 1879, the relator dismissed the proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Knott, 72 Fla. 176 (Fla. 1916)…rning the ballots as cast, when access to them is afforded by virtue of the writ. This is not a case where the duty commanded is impossible of performance as in State ex rel. Bisbee, Jr. v. Inspectors of Election at Precinct No. 4 of Madison County, 17 Fla. 26; State ex rel. Dixon v. Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, 20 Fla. 402; Silvers v. State, 68 Fla. 368, 67 South. Rep. 143. Nor does the writ require an unlawful act as in County Commissioners of Columbia County v. King, 13 Fla. 451; State ex…
-
Lamb v. Harris, 91 Fla. 927 (Fla. 1926)…154. Nor will the peremptory writ issue when it would be unavailing, or useless, or when compliance with it would be nugatory in its effects, or without beneficial results and fruitless to the petitioner or relator. State v. Inspectors of Election, 17 Fla. 26; State v. Marion County, 27 Fla. 438, 8 So. 749; State v. McRae, 49 Fla. 389, 38 So. 605; Howell [*937] v. State, 54 Fla. 199, 45 So. 453; Bishoff v. State, 30 So. 808, 43 Fla. 67; 38 C. J. 614. Applying these principles to the instant matter caref…
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. J. H. Vereen v. The Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Marion Cnty., 27 Fla. 438 (Fla. 1891)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence