Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. John I. Platt, Appellant, v. The Board of State Canvassers of the State of New York and Frank Rice et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-12
Citations: 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 179
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. John I. Platt, Appellant, v. The Board of State Canvassers of the State of New York and Frank Rice et al., Respondents.
Judges: Putnam, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 81
Pages: 179–198

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. John I. Platt, Appellant, v. The Board of State Canvassers of the State of New York and Frank Rice et al., Respondents.
Contempt — of an order of the Supreme Court — the order is in force until the judgment of reversal of the Court of Appeals is made the Supreme Court judgment— order to shoio cause appealable — leave necessa/ry for a renewal of a motion — laches.
An order was made at a Special Term of the Supreme Court and thereafter affirmed hy the General Term commanding that the State Board of Canvassers should not canvass certain specified returns. An appeal was taken therefrom to the Court of Appeals, and such order, in so far as it prohibited such hoard from canvassing such returns, was affirmed. The decision of the Court of Appeals was read hy the counsel of such hoard, and it was communicated to some of the members thereof. After the handing down of such decision, hut before the filing of the remittitur and the entry of an order making the judgment of the Court of Appeals that of the Supreme Court, such board of canvassers canvassed the returns in question.
jHeld, that the order of the General Term was in full force until the judgment of the Court of Appeals was made that of the Supreme Court, and the State Board of Canvassers was guilty of contempt of court in canvassing such returns. (Mayham, P. J., dissenting.)
An order of the Special Term denying a motion for an order to show cause why certain persons should not he punished for contempt of court is an order made upon a contested motion, in effect a final order, and is appealable. (Mayham, P. J., dissenting.)
Upon an appeal from such an order it would not he proper for the General Term to grant an original order directing the defendants to show cause why they should not he punished for contempt, no permission having "been given for the renewal of such motion.
A motion having once been denied cannot he renewed upon the same papers without leave.
A delay in taking proceedings to punish certain persons as for a contempt, because of an alleged disobedience of an order, should not defeat a motion made for an order for such persons to show cause why they should not he punished for such contempt, unless it he shown that such delay has injured such persons or has prevented them from interposing some answer to such motion that could have been asserted if such application had been sooner made. (Mayham, P. J., dissenting.)
Appeal by the relator, John I. Platt, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at Chambers on January 31,1891, and entered in tlie office of the clerk of Albany county on the 9tli day of June, 1893, denying bis motion for an order to show cause why the defendants should not be punished for contempt of court, with leave to renew said motion before any other justice of said court; and also-from an order made at tlie Columbia Special Term and entered, in thp office of tlie clerk of Albany county on tlie 9th day of June, 1893, denying said motion, with notice of a motion to he made at the G-eneral Term for an order requiring the defendants to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt, and for other relief.
John Brooks Leavitt, for the appellant.
J. Newton Fiero, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Herrick, J.:
After the State election in 1891 a controversy arose in the county of Dutchess over the canvass by the bqard of county can vassers of the vote for State Senator; the county clerk, as secretary of the hoard, of canvassers, refused to sign the statements of canvass as made by the board of canvassers, and said board thereupon by resolution appointed John J. Mylod, one of its members, secretary 'pro tern., and directed him as such to sign and attest said statements, which he did, and such statements, so signed by him, were transmitted to the Governor, Secretary of State and Comptroller, to be canvassed by the defendants herein as the State Board of Canvassers.
Proceedings were thereupon instituted against the defendants, 'composing the State Board of Canvassers, po prevent their canvassing the statement or return signed by Mylod, and on December 7, 1891, at a Special Term of the Supreme Court, an order was granted containing the following provision : " It is ordered that a writ of peremptory mandamus issue out of, and under the seal of, this court commanding and requiring the said State Board of Canvassers that they issue a certificate of election to the office of Senator in the fifteenth senatorial district of this State, disregarding the so-called return of the board of county canvassers of the county of Dutchess, which is signed by John Mylod, as secretary of said board pro tempore, and is not signed by the county clerk of Dutchess county or certified under the seal of said county clerk, but that instead thereof they consider only such return from the county of Dutchess as may hereafter be filed containing the signature of the county clerk of the county of Dutchess and the chairman of said board of county canvassers, and issue under the seal of said county clerk, and that in their certificate of election the said State Board of Canvassers certify and declare that the person who appears upon the certified returns and statements made by the boards of canvassers of the counties of Columbia, Putnam and Dutchess, in pursuance of the statute and the order of the court, to have received the greatest number of votes, was duly elected Senator from the said fifteenth senatorial district."
This order was affirmed by the General Term and was then taken to the Court of Appeals. (See People ex rel. Daley v. Rice, 129 N. Y. 449.)
It appears from the opinion of Judge Peckham that two grounds were urged in the Court of Appeals for sustaining the order in ques tion, one that the return of the county canvassers referred to in said order was not certified by the county clerk, and the other, that the-county canvassers illegally threw out votes which had been counted for Mr. Deane by the inspectors of election, and illegally transposed votes canvassed by said inspectors; that votes counted for Mr. Deane were given to Mr. Osborne, and that the board of county canvassers illegally canvassed the returns from the inspectors of election in the whole county and made up their own canvass in opposition to such returns. As to the first ground, the court held that it was not necessary that the returns of the board of county canvassers should be signed or certified by the county clerk, and in disposing of that question the court said: " "We think that under all the facts the steps taken to certify and authenticate the statements were valid, and the proceedings by which they were sent to, and received by, the Secretary of State and other State officers were sufficient to entitle them to be filed and considered by the Board of State Canvassers as the properly certified result of the canvass of the board of county canvassers. The other ground for directing the State Canvassers to omit to canvass this return remains to be considered."
The court then, after reciting the facts in regard to the second ground of objection to canvassing such return, proceeded as follows:
" Bpon these facts standing uncontradicted, we think the court below in its proper branch would have the power to command the State Canvassers to canvass without regard to such a return. As it contained the result of an illegal and erroneous canvass by the board of county canvassers in excess of its jurisdiction, and which thereby would alter the result of an election, the court should not permit it to be canvassed. If another return should be duly sent to the board, properly authenticated and containing the result of the legal action of the board of county canvassers, the State board could canvass it.
" "We think, as a result, that the order for the writ and the writ itself should be modified by striking out the provisions requiring a return to be certified by, and to come from, the county clerk of Dutchess comity, and issued under his seal, and as so modified the order is affirmed."
The remittitur of the Court of Appeals upon such decision was as follows: " It is ordered and adjudged that the order of the Spe cial Term herein, dated December I, 1891, and the order of the-General Term affirming the same, and the same writ itself, be modified by striking out the provision requiring a return to be certified by and to come from the county clerk of Dutchess county, and issued under his seal, and that the said order, so appealed from, as. so modified, be affirmed, without costs."
Striking out the provisions in the order of the Special Term requiring a return to be certified by and. to come from the county clerk of Dutchess county and issued under his seal, the order issued by the Special Term would read as follows :
" It is ordered that a writ of peremptory mandamus issue out of,, and under the seal of, this court commanding and requiring the State Board of Canvassers that they issue a certificate of election to-the office of Senator in the fifteenth senatorial district of this State, disregarding the return of the board of county canvassers of the county of Dutchess, which is signed by John IVIylod, as secretary of said board pro tem, but that instead thereof they consider only such return from the county of Dutchess as may hereafter be-filed ; and that in their certificate of election the said State Board of Canvassers certify and declare that the person who appears upon the certified returns and statements made by the boards of canvassers-of the counties of Columbia, Putnam and Dutchess, in pursuance of the statute and the order of the court, to have received the greatest number of votes, was duly elected Senator from the said fifteenth senatorial district."
"Whatever other return the Board of State Canvassers might canvass, they were thus expressly forbidden by an order of the Special Term of this court, affirmed by the General Term and the Court, of Appeals, to canvass the so-called " IVIylod return," yet in the evening of the same day that the opinion of the Court of Appeals, was handed down, and after the same had been read by counsel for-the defendants, and as appears from the case, communicated to at; least some of the defendants, but, I infer, before the filing of the remittitur and the entry of an order making the judgment of the Court of Appeals that of the Supreme Court, the Board of State Canvassers met and canvassed the votes for Senator in the fifteenth district, and in doing so they failed to disregard the " Mylod return."' They used that return in making their canvass.
Without discussing the question whether or not there was a corrected return before the board which they could and should have cauvassed, it is sufficient to say that there was an order of the Special Term, affirmed by the General Term and the Court of Appeals, in force, directing a mandamus to issue to the defendants, forbidding the use of the " IVIylod " return in making their canvass. 'This order had been served upon the defendants, and they had appealed from it, and knew the result of such appeal. Whether or not the remittitur of the Court of Appeals had been filed or judgment entered thereon when the defendants acted in making the said canvass, it seems to me is not important. The order as affirmed by the General Term'was in full force until the judgment of the Court of Appeals was made that of the Supreme Court.
In Sixth Ave. R. R. Co. v. Gilbert El. R. R. Co. (71 N. Y. 430) it is held that an appeal from a judgment restraining action on the part of a defendant, and a stay of proceedings thereon, does not affect the validity or effect of the judgment pending the appeal. The •defendant is not absolved from the duty of obedience to it or permitted to do that which the judgment prohibits. The same may be •said in reference to the order providing that a mandamus issue •directing defendants to disregard the " IVIylod " return. If, when the defendants canvassed the "Mylod" return, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was not made that of the Supireme Court, then the order of the General Term was in force. If, on the contrary, its remittitur was filed and an order was entered thereon, the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirmed that of the General Term as to the Mylod return.
The only papers before the Special Term on this application, and before this court, are those of the moving parties; then' statements are uncontradicted; the defendants have submitted no opposing affidavits or records, and from the record as it is now before this court 'the fact seems to be established, that while the order of December 7, 1891, held by the Court of Appeals to have been properly granted, on the papers on which it was based, was in full force, providing for the issuance of a mandamus to defendants directing them to disregard the " Mylod " return, the defendants deliberately disobeyed such order and canvassed the " Mylod " return.
It is not desirable to discuss the merits of the case any further than is necessary to decide this appeal; a prejudgnunt of the merits of the principal case is to be avoided if possible, but on the case as it now appears before the court I cannot escape the conclusion that in canvassing the so-called " Mylod " return the defendants were guilty of contempt of court; of course, these views may be changed when the defendants submit their version of the transaction, and it is sincerely hoped that they will be able to show such a state of facts as will absolve them. The suggestion that the Court of Appeals, in the case of Hasbrouck v. The Supervisors (135 N. Y. 522), held that the return from Dutchess county attempted to be substituted in place of the " Mylod " return was invalid, is not of the slightest consecpience in this case; we are only dealing with the " Mylod " return ; it was the " Mylod " return the defendants were forbidden to canvass; it was the " Mylod " return they canvassed ; and the fact that there was another return, also illegal, which was attempted to be substituted in its place, makes no difference as to the duty of the defendants in reference to the " Mylod " return ; the case of Hasbrouck v. Supervisors did not deal with the "Mylod" return, and in no sense overruled People ex rel. Daley v. Rice (supra).
My attention has been called to the declaration of the Court of Appeals in the case of The People ex rel. Derby v. Rice et al. (129 N. Y. 161), wherein it said in the case of an order like the one said to have been violated in this case: " If we were free to consider and determine the right or propriety to order the writ of mandamus to issue in this matter, we should not hesitate to hold that it should not have been granted by the Supreme Court at a Special Term. Though the writ is in form one of peremptory mandamus, yet it is by force of its terms and commands in effect an order which restrains the board of State officers engaged in the performance of or about to perform a duty imposed by the statute."
The court based this declaration upon the provisions of section 605 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the opinion proceeds: " However, because of the stipulation of the parties, which accompanies the record here, and because of the failure of the defendants to the proceeding to raise the objection, we have concluded to overlook the question of jurisdiction and to determine the questions at issue upon their merits."
Tbe cases of The People ex rel. Derby v. Rice and The People ex rel. Daley v. Rice et al., were companion cases; they appear to have been argued in tbe Court of Appeals upon tbe same day, and to have been decided upon tbe same day; tbe orders appealed from were made at and by tbe same Special Term at tbe same time, and tbe stipulation referred to in tbe Derby case embraces also tbe Daley case as well as othei's ; and like tbe Derby case no objections, were taken in tbe court below to tbe power of tbe court to grant tbe order in question ; both orders were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the one in tbe Daley case having been modified as herein-before stated.
Unless the order is void upon its face for lack of jurisdiction on tbe part of tbe court which granted it, tbe party violating it is properly adjudged guilty of contempt. (The People ex rel. Davis v. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 263.)
"No matter bow erroneous the action of tbe court may have been in taking cognizance of tbe suit and awarding a mandatory process, unless there was an entire absence of judicial authority to act in tbe premises, it was tbe duty of tbe defendants to obey its commands, until they have been revoked by an order made in tbe action in which they bad been issued, either upon motion or appeal, or by some other method of direct review." (People ex rel. Cauffman v. Van Buren, 136 N. Y. 252.)
Tbe order in this case having been affirmed by tbe Court of Appeals, I do not feel at liberty to say that it was a void order; I cannot assume that that court would affirm an order that is void upon its face, but, on tbe contrary, must bold that the fact that the highest court in tbe State has affirmed tbe order is decisive of that question, and that however irregular it may have been, or improperly, or without authority granted, yet that it was not void upon its face; and as we have seen, it not being void upon its face, tbe party who violates it is properly adjudged guilty of contempt.
It may also be added that upon this motion tbe question of the authority of tbe Special Term to grant the order is not raised by tbe defendants ; indeed, it seems to me that tbe stipulation entered into by them upon tbe appeal would bar them from raising that question in a proceeding of this character.
Upon tbe state of facts here recited, an ex parte application was. made to Mr. Justice Barnard for an order directing the defendants to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt; such application was denied, with leave, however, to renew the same before some other judge. In denying the application, the-learned justice, in the course of his opinion, made the following-statement :
" It was made a question whether the county cleric must certify the return, and the Court of Appeals subsequently held that a board of supervisors was empowered with the right to certify the return by another person than the county clerk if he refused to sign the certificate. The appeal from Judge Edwards' order had only this point in it. Before the decision by the Court of Appeals the supervisors had, by the order of this court, recounted the votes so as to elect Mr. Deane, and the vote so recounted was certified by a new county clerk, the old one having been removed by the Governor, and this amended return got to the proper officers before the decision by the Court of Appeals, so that when that decision came, the State Canvassers had, or ought to have had, this corrected return. If the board violated its duty and counted the uncorrected return, it was not a contempt of an order of any court. The order of the court simply provided a legal return of the canvass of the votes, and when it was filed the duty of the court was accomplished."
The learned justice was in error in supposing that the only point in the appeal from Justice Edwards' order was, whether the county clerk must certify the return. As we have seen in the extracts we have made from the decision of the Court of Ap>peals, that was only one of the questions, and while the " Mylod " return was held legal in that respect, it was held illegal on the other grounds. Again, with great respect, it seems to me that the learned justice erred in his statement that " the order of the court simply provided a legal return of the canvass of the votes." It provided more; it provided that the " Mylod " return should not be canvassed.
Application upon notice was subsequently made to Justice Edwards for an order to show cause; both sides were heard, and, without expressing any opinion of his own upon the merits, Justice Edwards announced that he would follow the decision of Justice Barnard and denied the application. The appeal here is from both orders.
Tlie objection is made that no appeal lies from the order of Justice Barnard. It seems to me to be of no consequence whether such order is appealable or not.
In that order permission was given to renew the motion, and, hence, the subsequent motion at the Special Term, over which Justice Edwards presided, was regular. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider whether or not an appeal lies from the prior order made .at Chambers by Justice Barnard.
The learned counsel for the respondents also insists that the latter order of the Special Term, denying relator's motion for an order to .show cause, is not appealable. That the order in question, being a mere denial of a motion for an order to show cause, did not affect a .substantial right. That the order asked for by relator, if granted, could only have operated as a short notice of motion, and the denial •of the motion in no way prejudiced his rights.
I am of opinion, however, that the order in question did prejudice the rights of the relator. It was an order made on a contested motion. The motion was made in pursuance of the provisions of ¡subdivision 1, section 2269, Civil Code. The relator, on making-proof by affidavit that defendants had disobeyed an order of the court, .served a notice for an order requiring the defendants to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt in pursuance of the provisions of section 2269 {supra). Defendants had notice of the motion, appeared and opposed the granting of it, and the motion was denied. If this order stands unreversed it prevents any further application or proceeding by the relator to punish defendants for the alleged contempt. It is, in effect, a final order. By the well-.settled rules and practice of this court such an order — no leave being given to move again on the same papers — prevents another motion of the same character. (Seaman v. McReynolds, 52 N. Y. .Super. Ct. 543; Klumpp v. Gardner, 44 Hun, 515; Higgs et al. v. Pursell et al., 74 N. Y. 370.)
It is urged by appellant that although this court should not con•clude to reverse the order in question, yet that on the same affidavits and papers on which that order was founded 'it could and should grant an original order, directing the defendants to show cause as -asked for by the relator. I think the position is not well taken. Assuming that a General Term could properly, on an original appli cation, grant sncli an order, yet such General Term, in that view, possesses no more or other power than the Special Term to commit for contempt in such a case, and as relator elected, on notice, to make his application at the Special Term, no permission having been given to renew the motion, it would not be proper for this court on the same papers to grant the order asked for. As we have no other or greater power (if we have any) than the Special Term, we are governed by the well-established rule of practice that a motion which has been denied cannot be renewed on the same papers without leave. It follows that the order in question is practically a final order, and amounts to a denial of relator's motion to commit defendants for the-alleged contempt. The order asked for was not a short notice of, or-a substitute for, a notice of motion. It was a preliminary order necessary to be granted, in pursuance of the provision of the Civil Code above referred to in the proceedings to punish defendants for the. alleged contempt. Hence, it is appealable. (The People v. Healy, 33 How. 172; Livingston v. Swift, 23 id. 1.)
If it stands unreversed it certainly ends any attempt of relator to proceed against defendants for their alleged disobedience of the-order of this court of December Y, 1891.
It is urged that the order appealed from was properly denied because of the delay in asking for it. It seems to me this position can be more properly considered on the final hearing of the case. But I am unable to understand how the delay in relator's taking proceedings on account of the alleged disobedience of defendants of the order of this court should defeat the motion, unless it is shown that such delay injured the defendants or prevented them from interposing some answer to the motion that could have been asserted if the application had been sooner made. The authorities to which my attention has been called are not parallel. In Jourden v. Hawkins (17 Johns. 35) a motion was made for an attachment against the sheriff on account of acts of his deputy, after eighteen months5 delay. During the eighteen months the deputy and his sureties had become insolvent. Hence, it apjneared that the sheriff was injured by the delay in moving for the attachment. In the case of The King v. The Sheriff of Surry (9 East, 467) the facts were the same as in the case last cited. Rex v. Perring et al., late Sheriff (3 Bos. & Pull. 151), was also a similar case and decided on the author ity of The King v. The Sheriff of Surry (supra). It is possible that on tbe return of tbe order to show cause respondents may sliow that they have been injured by the delay, but no such injury appears in the papers submitted to us.
I have not considered what effect, if any, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the fact (if it is a fact) that no mandamus under the order of December J, 1891, was served, may have. That question was not discussed on the argument, and may be considered hereafter.
The case is a very embarrassing and delicate one, involving as it .does a proceeding against so considerable a portion of a. co-ordinate branch of the State government, and I would gladly have been relieved from its consideration, but being here, it must be treated in the same way as a proceeding against any other body of men, .and so treating it, I can, from the record before us and for the reasons herein stated, reach no other conclusion than that the defendants have disobeyed the order of this court and are in contempt.
I conclude, therefore, that the order of Justice Edwards should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing and other disbursements, and that the motion for an order to show cause should be granted.
Let an order be entered accordingly.
Putnam, J., concurred.