Case Name: In re EMMETT
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-10-26
Citations: 41 N.Y.S. 500
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re EMMETT,
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 41
Pages: 500–507

Head Matter:
(9 App. Div. 237.)
In re EMMETT,
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
October 26, 1896.)
Elections—Filing Certificate of Nomination—Determination as to Validity—Review—Limitation.
Laws 1896, c. 909 (Election Law) § 56, giving “the supreme court or any justice thereof” summary jurisdiction to review a determination as to tlie validity of a certificate of nomination by the officer with whom the certificate is required to be filed, and make such order as justice may require, “but such order must he made on or before the last day fixed for filing certificates of nomination,” limits the time within which the appellate division of the supreme court may make an effective review of such an order by a justice thereof, as well as the time within which he may make the order. Hatch, J., dissenting.
Appeal from special term.
Richard S. Emmett, Jr., and Joseph E. Ennis presented to the ■county clerk of Westchester county certificates of nomination for member of the assembly for the Second district of Westchester county, each claiming to be the regular nominee of the Republican party. The determination of the clerk in favor of Emmett was, on application of Ennis, reversed by a justice of the supreme court, who ordered the name of Ennis to be put on the official ballot as the Republican nominee, and from such order -Emmett appeals. Dismissed.
Argued before BROWN, P. J., and BARTLETT, CULLEN, HATCH, and BRADLEY, JJ.
James M. Hunt and Roger M. Sherman, for appellant
H. 0. Henderson, for respondent.
Reversed by the court of appeals. See 44 N. E. 1102.

Opinion:
BROWN, P. J.
In this case, which is entitled, "In the Hatter of the Objections to the Certificate of Nomination for Member of Assembly of the Second Assembly District of Westchester County," the court is of the opinion that it can make no effective order in the case. The statute of 1895 provided that the court could "make such order in the premises as justice may require." Laws 1895, c. 810, § 56. By the amendment made to the law in 1896 it was further provided that "such order must be made on or before the last day fixed for filing certificates of nominations to fill vacancies with such officer as provided in sub-division one, of section sixty-six of this article." Laws 1896, c. 909, § 56. That subdivision requires that the certificate of nomination for member of assembly shall be filed with the clerk 15 days before the election, so that, in compliance with that provision of the statute, it is impossible for the court to make any order that would be effective in this matter. The case from the Fourth department, to which our attention was called, was decided under the act of 1895, and has no application to this case. Therefore the appeal that is taken is dismissed. That is the view of three judges of the court. Judge HATCH has dissented from that view, and he has expressed the views that he has taken in a written opinion, which will be filed with the clerk.