Case Name: SEARCY v. GROW
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1860
Citations: 15 Cal. 117
Docket Number: 
Parties: SEARCY v. GROW.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 117–123

Head Matter:
SEARCY v. GROW.
In a proceeding by an elector to contest the right to an office of a party returned as elected thereto at a general election, the defendant first moved to dismiss the proceedings; his motion being overruled, he declined to answer the statement filed by the contestant, and the Court, without proof by either party, annulled the election. Held, that this was error, and that the proceeding should have been dismissed.
The public is interested in a contest of this character; it is not a matter solely between the parties to the record, and the popular will is not to be set aside upon the mere failure of a party to respond to charges alleged against his right by an individual elector. It is not sufficient that ample causes of contest be set forth in the statement filed by a contestant; their truth must be established by clear proof, before an election can be annulled.
Under the twenty-first section of article four of the Constitution of this State, a person holding the Federal office described in that section, is incapable of being elected to a State office; he cannot receive votes cast so as to give him a right to take the State office upon or after resigning the Federal office. The word “ eligible ” in this section means capable of being chosen, the subject of selection or choice.
The term “ compensation,” in section 21, art. 4 of the Constitution of this State, means the income of the office, not the profit over and above the necessary expenses of the office.
In suit under our statute by an elector, to contest an election, he becomes a party, and is responsible for costs if he fail. The Court has no discretion to dismiss or entertain the case, as it deems the public interest requires. Uor has the State’s Attorney such discretion. The case is prosecuted like any other action instituted by a private citizen, subject only to the provisions of the statute.
Appeal from the County Court of Siskiyou.
This was a proceeding under the statute providing for contesting elections. Defendant appeals.
Geo. Cadwalader, for Appellant.
The default of the defendant did not waive the necessity of proof. The people of the State are interested in the result of such controversies.
Hoge & Wilson and McCann & Ganahl, of Counsel.
Rosborough & Berry, for Respondent.
This is a civil cause, and the default of the defendant admits the facts alleged against him. (Wood’s Dig. art. 2163, sec. 63.)

Opinion:
Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court
Baldwin, J. concurring.
At the general election held in September, 1859, the defendant was returned elected to the office of Sheriff of Siskiyou county, and the present proceeding was taken to contest his right to the office. A motion to dismiss the proceeding was overruled, and the defendant declining to answer the statement filed by the contestant, the Court, without proof by either party, rendered judgment annulling the election of the defendant and awarding costs against him. In this respect the ruling of the Court was clearly erroneous. The public is interested in a contest of this character; it is not a matter solely between the parties to the record, and the popular will is not to be set aside upon a mere failure of a party to respond to charges alleged against his right by an individual elector. It is not sufficient that ample causes of contest be set forth in the statement filed by a contestant; it is requisite that their truth should be established by clear proof before an election can be annulled. The statute in terms provides that the Court shall pronounce judgment, after hearing " the proofs and allegations of the parties," which of course means such as may be made by either or both. If no proof be given on either side, the proceedings should be dismissed. It follows that the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded; and it is so ordered.
On the return of the remittitur, the case was tried on its merits and judgment rendered declaring defendant ineligible to the office of Sheriff. He appeals.
For facts, see opinion.
George Cadwalader, for Appellant.
1. The intention of the twenty-first section of art. 4 of the Constitution of this State is to exclude the possibility of the incumbent of a Federal office, exercising a State office, at the same time—so as not to confound the limits of Federal and State sovereignty. The mere election of Grow did not make him a State officer; until he qualified, he was not to receive anything from the State, or incur to her any responsibility. He made no attempt to hold both offices. A minor is eligible to an office who attains his majority before the arrival of the time of qualification. (See generally, Hammond v. Herrick, Congressional Contests, 287 ; Earl's case, 314; Munford's case, 316 ; State of Vermont v. Fisher, 28 Vt. 714.)
2. The term " compensation," in the above section of the Constitution, does not mean what the officer receives without deducting the necessary and notorious expenses of every post office, any more than the same term when used in the Federal or State Constitution, with reference to the pay of Judges, means that they shall pay. the rent of court rooms, etc., out of their salary.
Rosborough, for Respondent.
No brief on file.