Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta In re Swarthout 136 N.Y.S. 243

← Cases

In re Swarthout

136 N.Y.S. 243 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Delivered by CHESTER, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 243
(76 Misc. Rep. 24.)
In re SWARTHOUT. In re RATIGAN.
(Supreme Court, Albany County, at Chambers.
March, 1912.)

Headnote

1. Elections (§ 121*)—Nominations—Filing.
Where, under Election Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 17) § 48, as amended by Laws 1911, c. 891, 451 names were requisite to constitute a valid petition íor a nomination for membership of the Democratic state committee for the Fortieth senatorial district, and there was received at the Secretary of State’s office on the last day for filing designations of nomi
•For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
p. 244
nation a petition, designating a person for the position, containing 432 names, of which the designation of a number was defective, papers mailed on the last day for filing the designations, but not received at the office of the Secretary of State until the following day, cannot be considered to bring the number of signers up to the requisite 451.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Elections, Cent. Dig. § 115; Dec. Dig. § 121.*]
2. Elections (§ 121*)—Nominations—Filing.
Election Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 17) § 49, subd. 2, as amended by Laws 1911, c. 891, as to the time when certificates of nomination shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State, is mandatory, and the court will not relieve from accidents or mistakes causing delay in such filing, due to want of diligence on the part of those to whom the filing was intrusted.
[Ed: Note.—For other cases, see Elections, Cent. Dig. § 115; Dec. Dig. § 121.*]
•For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, Rep’r Indexes
_ In the matter of the designation of Charles H. Swarthout as a candidate for election as member of the Democratic State Committee for the Fortieth Senatorial District, comprising the counties of Cayuga, Seneca, and Cortland, and of the petition whereby said designation is attempted to be made. Charles F. Ratigan, the regularly designated candidate for the position named, files petition asking that the Secretary of State be enjoined from certifying the candidacy of Swarthout for the position.
Granted.
Richard C. S. Drummond, for petitioner.
W. R. Hopkins, for Charles H. Swarthout.
James A. Parsons, Deputy Atty. Gen., for Secretary of State.

[1] There was received! at the office of the Secretary of State on March 11, 1912, the last day under the law for filing designations for party nominations (Election Law, ■§ 49, subd. 2, as amended by Laws 1911, c. 891), a petition designating Charles H. Swarthout as a Democratic candidate for member of the state committee for the Fortieth senatorial district, composed of the counties of Cayuga, Seneca, and Cortland. The petition came in two parts, one from Seneca county, containing 241 names, and one from Cayuga, containing 191 names, a total of 432; none came from Cortland county. On March 12th two other papers came by mail to the office of the Secretary of State, each from Cayuga county, containing the same designation, one having 20 names and the other 18 thereon. It is conceded that undler the Election Law (section 48) 451 names were requisite to constitute a valid petition for a party nomination for the position, in question, there having been 11,268 votes cast for the Democratic candidate for Governor in that senatorial district at the last gubernatorial election. It is conceded that 11 names on the papers filed in the office of the Secretary of State March 11th cannot properly be counted. Two other names appear to be subscribed thereto twice, which requires the deduction of 2 more names. On one sheet of the papers received from Seneca county containing 16 names the notarial certificate has not been added. Mr. Bishop, one of the signers of that sheet, has testified on the hearing before me that he signed! and swore

p. 245
to the petition before one James H. Clary, a notary public, and that he was present when each of the other persons signed his name on such sheet, and that the affidavit of each of them was taken by such notary. He has omitted, -however, to sign the certificate attached thereto to that effect, and the petition was filed with the Secretary of State with such omission and is still in that condition. It is, therefore, on its face, defective to that' extent. Many other defects in the petition are urged, which need not be considered!, for it is evident that, if the two papers received at the office of the Secretary of State by mail on March 12th cannot be considered to bring the number of signers above the requisite 451, the attempted nomination must fail. Each of the envelopes containing these papers bears the postmark 'at Auburn, March 11, 1912, one at 5 p. m. of that day, and they were neither of them received at the Secretary’s office until the next day, which was one day late. No reason is assigned by the respondents to excuse the delay, except that the law under which they were acting was new and! that the magnitude of the task in procuring the requisite number of names was such that the filing could not have been made earlier. It is evident, however, that the parties concerned in the movement to make this nomination were aware of the fact that March 11th was the last day under the law for filing the petition, and that under the statute time is an essential element of any successful working of the scheme of conducting elections thereunder.

[2] The Court of Appeals has held with respect to a similar statute that the statutory requirement as to the time when certificates of nomination should be filed was mandatory, and that the Supreme Court might relieve from accidents or mistakes causing delay in such filing only when the delay was not due to the negligence or fault of the convention making, the nomination, or of the party to whom the filing of the certificate was intrusted. Matter of Darling, 189 N. Y. 570 , 82 N. W. 438 . No such case is presented here. On the contrary, the delay in filing the two last-named papers appears to have been caused by the want of diligence of those .having them in charge and with full knowledge of the statutory requirements with respect to the time for filing.

It appears that the Secretary of State, under some misapprehension of the law, has sent forth a certificate of the nomination of Mr. Swarthout to the custodians of primary records of Cayuga and Seneca counties. These custodians should be directed to return these certificates to the Secretary of State, and the application of the petitioner should be granted.

Application granted.

Cases cited