Case Name: PEOPLE ex rel. QUINN v. VOORHIS et al., Com'rs
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-10-15
Citations: 100 N.Y.S. 717
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. QUINN v. VOORHIS et al., Com’rs.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 100
Pages: 717–722

Head Matter:
(115 App. Div. 118)
PEOPLE ex rel. QUINN v. VOORHIS et al., Com’rs.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
October 15, 1906.)
1. Appeal—Compliance with Obdeb—Dismissal.
Where, after a peremptory mandamus was granted directing the commissioners of elections of New York to designate certain daily papers advocating the election of H. as the candidate of the Democratic Party for Governor in which to publish a list of places for the registration and polling of votes, as required by Election Law, Laws 1896, p: 893, c. 909, § 10, the commissioners met and fully complied with the writ, on which no costs were awarded, an appeal subsequently taken was ineffective, and would be dismissed.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, sée vol. 3, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, § 3122.]
2. Same—Public Questions—Deteemination.
The board of elections of the city of New York designated certain newspapers as representing the Democratic Party, in which to publish election notices required by Election Law, Laws 1896, p. 893, c. 909, § 10, whereupon a peremptory mandamus was issued, requiring them to designate papers advocating the election of H. as the candidate of the Democratic Party for Governor, in which to publish the list of places for registration and polling of votes. The board, instead of presenting any evidence to sustain their action or giving notice to the proprietors of the newspapers first designated as Democratic papers, allowed the allegations of the affidavits charging that such newspapers were not supporting the principles and candidates of the Democratic Party to go unchallenged, and complied with the writ by appointing four other papers which were supporting H. as the Democratic candidate for Governor. Seld, that the record was insufficient to justify the court in retaining an appeal, notwithstanding defendants’ compliance with the writ, for the purpose of determining whether the papers first designated were eligible, though they did not support the Democratic candidate for Governor.
Ingraham and Clarke, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal-from Special Term, New York County.
Mandamus by the people, on relation of Thomas C. Quinn, against John R. Voorhis and others, as commissioners of the board of elections of the city of New York. From an order granting a peremptory writ, defendants appeal. On motion to dismiss appeal. Granted.
Argued before PATTERSON, INGRAHAM, LAUGHLIN, CRARKE, and HOUGHTON, JJ.
Otto T. Hess, for the motion.
Arthur C. Butts, opposed.

Opinion:
LAUGHLIN, J.
The appeal is from an order of the Special Term
directing that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue herein, commanding the defendants, as commissioners composing the board of elections of the city of New York, and their successors in office, to "publish a list of places for the registration and polling of votes according to the election laws of the state of New York (Laws 1896, p. 893, c. 909), and especially section 10 thereof, in four (4) daily newspapers published in the Borough of Manhattan, which advocate the election of William Randolph Hearst as the candidate of the Democratic Party for Governor, the said Democratic Party being a political party polling the next highest number of votes for Governor at the last election in the state of New York, and its platform" adopted at the last state convention, at which said Hearst was nominated for Governor "and the Democratic ticket as named at said convention." On the motion to dismiss the appeal, it appears that a peremptory writ of mandamus has been duly issued pursuant to the order appealed from, commanding the appellants to convene and designate for the purpose of publishing said election notices four daily newspapers which advocate the election of said Hearst and the platform of the Democratic Party as adopted at its last state convention, and the Democratic ticket nominated at said convention; that pursuant to the command of said writ the appellants convened as a board of elections and reconsidered arid rescinded a resolution adopted on the 4th day of October, 1906, which, among other things, designated "the Sun, the World, the Times, and the Staats Zeitung" as daily newspapers advocating the principles of the Democratic Party in which the election notices should be published, and revoking and annulling "any authority for the publication of said election notices that may be contained in the letter of the President" of the board to the publishers of said newspapers, which letter was dated on the 4th day of October, 1906, and thereupon adopted a resolution designating the New York Daily News, New York American, the Telegraph, and the Morgen Journal as daily newspapers published in the borough of Manhattan in which said election notices should be published; that said resolution reconsidering and rescinding the former resolution was adopted at 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the 8th day of October, 1906, and the resolution making a new designation of newspapers was adopted half an hour later; and that the notice of appeal was not served until late in the afternoon of the same day. No costs were awarded on granting the order, and therefore, since the appellants, instead of applying for a stay and taking an appeal, have fully complied with the mandamus issued pursuant to the order, this subsequent appeal can be of no avail or effect so far as this proceeding is concerned.
Notwithstanding this fact, it is urged that the case falls within the rule that, where an important public question is involved, the court, instead of dismissing an appeal, even though the order appealed from has been executed, will retain the case and express an opinion upon the law as a precedent for the guidance of public officials in the future. We are of opinion that this case is not one in which that course should be followed. The appellants—instead of presenting any evidence to sustain their action or giving notice to the proprietors of the newspapers first designated as Democratic papers by them, and affording them an opportunity to apply for intervention or to present affidavits showing that they were supporting the principles, although not the present candidates, of the Democratic Party, which might render them eligible for designation under the statute—have allowed the allegations of the petition, charging not only that the newspapers first designated by them were not supporting the candidate of the Democratic Party, but also that they were not supporting the principles of the Democratic Party, and, on the contrary, were supporting both the candidates and the principles of the Republican Party, to remain undenied. It is manifest, therefore, that the record as made does not present for deter mination the correctness of the theory upon which the appellants doubtless originally acted, or the claims that may be made in behalf of the newspapers originally designated, that, although not supporting the candidates, they are still loyal to the principles and are supporting the principles of the Democratic Party, and might therefore be eligible for such designation.
It was stated upon the argument, but does not appear in the record, although it is to be inferred from the papers upon which the motion to dismiss is made, that the president of the board, after the original designation of newspapers, by a letter duly authorized the proprietors of the newspapers to commence the publication, and that the board, without any notice or hearing to the proprietors of those papers, has assumed to rescind the resolution and to annul the authority for publishing the notices theretofore given pursuant thereto, and has authorized the proprietors of the newspapers designated on the 8th of October to publish the notices. It would be improper, in view of the state of this record as already indicated, for this court to express any decided opinion which might embarrass the proprietors of the newspapers in asserting their claim for the publication of the notices either under the original designation or under the last designation.
We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed, and an order to that effect may be entered.
PATTERSON and HOUGHTON, JJ., concur.