Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of Charles H. Duell, Appellant, for an Order to Review the Decision of the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondent, and Fixing the Order of Candidates for Party Positions on the Republican Primary Ballot to Be Voted for at the Primary to Be Held March 26, 1912
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-03-15
Citations: 149 A.D. 690
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Charles H. Duell, Appellant, for an Order to Review the Decision of the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondent, and Fixing the Order of Candidates for Party Positions on the Republican Primary Ballot to Be Voted for at the Primary to Be Held March 26, 1912.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 149
Pages: 690–694

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of Charles H. Duell, Appellant, for an Order to Review the Decision of the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondent, and Fixing the Order of Candidates for Party Positions on the Republican Primary Ballot to Be Voted for at the Primary to Be Held March 26, 1912.
First Department,
March 15, 1912.
Election Law — primary election—order on ballot of names of candidates for delegates to national convention — power of court to interfere.
Since there is no direction in the Election Law as to the order in which names of candidates for delegates to the National convention shall be placed upon the ballot, the court has no power to interfere with the acts of the hoards of elections.
Latjghlin and Dowling, JJ., dissented, with opinions.
Appeal by the petitioner, Charles H. Duell, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at, the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 13th day of March, 1912, denying the petitioner’s application herein.
William M. Bennett, for the appellant.
Terence Farley, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Ingraham, P. J.:
The majority of the court is of the opinion that there is no direction contained in the Election Law as to the order in which names of candidates for delegates to the National convention shall be placed upon the ballot; and that there being no direction as to the position in which these names should appear on the ballot, the acts of the board of elections did not violate the statute, and, therefore, the court has no power to interfere.
For this reason we think the court has not the power to reverse the action of the board of elections, and the order appealed from should be affirmed.
McLaughlin and Miller, JJ., concurred; Laughlin and Dowling, JJ., dissented.