STATE EX REL. WALTER PAGE
v.
D. S. DANNELLY
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.
In this quo warranto proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court determined that Walter Page rightfully won the primary election for precinct committeeman in Wakulla County against D. S. Dannelly, finding evidence of ballot fraud and establishing that quo warranto is the proper remedy to adjudicate rights to party positions.
Quo warranto is the proper remedy to adjudicate the right to a position of precinct committeeman in a political party. Page is entitled to the position because he received a majority of votes cast, as established by the commissioner's report on the evidence of ballot fraud and substitution.
“it is the proper remedy to adjudicate the right tp municipal office”
Establishes that quo warranto is appropriate for determining rights to public offices
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePage and Dannelly competed in a primary election for precinct committeeman in Wakulla County. The initial canvass showed Dannelly with 91 votes and Pa…
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 Ballot Integrity cases and more on FLexlaw
Relator claimed that respondent was usurping the office of committeeman for precinct numbered one in Wakulla County' and upon his application writ of quo warranto was issued by this Court commanding respondent to show by what authority he held the position.
The writ recited the averments of the petition' that the results of the primary were certified by the inspectors and clerk, who served at the primary election, to the Supervisor of Registration and the County Judge; that the Canvassing Board canvassed the absentee ballots and the votes shown in the return; that relator appeared to have received sixty-nine votes and respondent ninety-one.
Charges were included that twenty ballots actually cast for relator were credited to respondent; that of thirty-three absentee ballots twenty-three were deposited for relator and not more than ten for respondent; that one of the inspectors kept the ballot box in his possession the night following the election and in the interim between the closing of the polls and the canvass the box was opened and spurious ballots were substituted for the genuine ones so that relator eventually received but three votes from absentees while respondent garnered thirty.
Affidavits of twenty persons, swearing that they were qualified and had participated by voting for relator-, were appended to the petition.
The return denied, in the main, the allegations of the in*322formation and averred that the questioned ballots were marked by relator or his near relative.
An order was entered appointing Honorable A. L. Porter commissioner to take and report the testimony on the issues thus formed and in obedience thereto the report has been filed. The allegations of relator have, in our opinion, been substantiated and it has been well established that relator did in fact receive a majority of votes cast for the post he sought.
The question to be decided is: can the right to position of precinct committeeman be determined in quo warranto?
We have held that it is the proper remedy to adjudicate the right tp municipal office, Swoope v. City of New Smyrna, 98 Fla. 1082, 125 South. Rep. 371, and City of Sanford v. State, 73 Fla. 69, 75 South Rep. 619; also to office in a private coj-poration, Gentry-Futch Co. v. Gentry, 90 Fla. 595, 106 South. Rep. 473. The propriety of the writ to determine the right of a nominee of a political party was discussed in the cases of Ex Parte Smith, 96 Fla. 512, 118 South. Rep. 306, and State ex rel Watkins v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 South. Rep. 638. Applying the rule enunciated in either of these cases, in the most restricted sense, it is apparent that relator here may resort to the remedy of quo warranto to test the right of his adversary to the position in the party for which he claims to have been selected.
From the law, as it has been' established by the decisions of this Court, and from the facts which wé have given briefly,, we reach the conclusion that the writ should be absolute, and it is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford, J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baillie v. Walker, 30 Fla. Supp. 113 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1968)…ranto is available, there is no concurrent remedy in equity, or otherwise. McSween v. State Live Stock Sanitary Board of Florida. 97 Fla. 749, 122 So. 239, 65 ALR 508; City of Sanford v. State, 73 Fla. 69, 75 So. 619; State ex rel. Page v. Dannelly, 139 Fla. 320, 190 So. 593; Winter v. Mack, 142 Fla. 1, 194 So. 225; State ex rel. Booth v. Byington, 168 So. 2d 164 (1st D.C.A. Fla. [*115] 1964); 74 C.J.S., Quo Warranto, §4, page 179; and 44 Am. Jur., Quo Warranto, §8, page 94. Although the 1967 revision of t…
-
Shelly v. Brewer, 68 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1953)…ent to those granted or imposed by the other, in so far as the processes of the courts may be invoked to enforce or protect them.” See also State ex rel. Watkins v. Ferandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638, 86 A.L.R. 240; State ex rel. Page v. Dannelly, 139 Fla. 320, 190 So. 593; State ex rel. Feltman v. Hughes, Fla., 49 So. 2d 591. The petitioner cites the case of Alexander v. Booth, Fla., 56 So. 2d 716, as authority for this 'Court to refuse to intervene into internal Party affairs in the absence of specific…
-
Coles v. Robb, 69 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1954)…kind is the proper remedy. State ex rel. Feltman v. Hughes, Fla., 49 So. 2d 591; State ex rel. Watkins v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638, 86 A.L.R. 240; State ex rel. Pooser v. Wester, 126 Fla. 49, 170 So. 736; State ex rel. Page v. Dannelly, 139 Fla. 320, 190 So. 593. We now turn our attention to the merits of the cause presented to us. It resolves itself simply into the proposition whether a member of the State Democratic Executive Committee can while holding that office within the party structure…
Authorities Cited
- Gentry-Futch Co. v. Gentry, 90 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1925)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Ben Watkins v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779 (Fla. 1932)
- Ex Parte: I. W. Smith, 96 Fla. 512 (Fla. 1928)
- Swoope v. The City of New Smyrna, 98 Fla. 1082 (Fla. 1929)
- The City of Sanford v. The State of Fla. ex rel. A. A. Preston, 73 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1917)