Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re De Groot 120 N.Y.S. 1121

← Cases

In re De Groot

120 N.Y.S. 1121 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1909-12-30 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1121
In re DE GROOT.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 30, 1909.)

Headnote

In the matter of the application of William A. De Groot for a writ of mandamus, 6ÍCe

Order of the Special Term modified in the following particulars: Ballot Exhibit No. 20 is a void ballot, and should not have been counted for James McLaughlin. Ballot Exhibit No. 36 is a void ballot, and should not have been counted for William A. De Groot. Ballot Exhibit No. 29 is a void ballot, and should not have been counted for James F. McLaughlin. Ballot Exhibit No. 42 is a void ballot, and should not have been counted for James F. McLaughlin. The order, in so far as it is appealed from, as so modified, should be affirmed, without costs to either party, and a recount had in accordance with this decision. See, also, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1123 .