Court Opinion

ID: 3600793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:47:19.213989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:50.732003
License: Public Domain

Charles S. Whitman, the respondent, instituted this proceeding by presenting, under an order to show cause, to the Special Term of the Supreme Court *Page 4 
on November 25, 1918, an affidavit made by him. It stated, in effect: He was the candidate of the Republican party for the office of governor of this state at the general election of November 5, 1918; Alfred E. Smith was the candidate of the Democratic party for that office and other named persons were the like candidates of other named parties. In pursuance of the provisions of the Election Law inspectors of election in the various election districts in the county of Richmond made and filed statements of the results. It proceeded:
"That, as more particularly appears from the original statements of the result of the canvass filed by the Inspectors of Elections in the various Election Districts in the County above named with the Clerk of said County, certain of the ballots counted by such Inspectors were protested, or were canvassed as wholly blank or void. That a detailed statement of the number of such ballots protested or declared to be wholly blank or void as returned by said Inspectors, and as more fully appears from the original of said return on file in the office of the Clerk of the County above named, is set forth on Schedule A, hereto annexed, which is hereby made a part of this application as if here in full set forth. That deponent is informed and believes that a number of said ballots declared void were so declared because voters made their marks in the voting spaces opposite both the Republican and Prohibition emblems, and were valid. It is impossible for deponent to give any more definite information on this subject, because he has not yet succeeded, owing to the opposition by Alfred E. Smith, in examining said ballots under Section 374 of the Election Law, and it will be impossible to have such examination and make this application in the time required by statute."
It stated further in effect: The result of the election, as certified by the various inspectors of election, is about *Page 5 
to be, or has been, or is in the process of being canvassed by the county canvassers in pursuance to the provisions of the Election Law and in order that their certificate shall be correct it is necessary that a judicial review of the ballots returned as wholly blank, protested and void be had under section 381 of the Election Law. It proceeded: "Wherefore, your deponent prays that a writ of mandamus issue pursuant to the provisions of Section 381 of the Election Law, requiring the Board of County Canvassers of the County above named to recanvass the said ballots returned as wholly blank, void or protested. That in order that a proper writ issue this Court direct the said ballots returned as wholly blank, void and protested to be brought before this Court and judicially passed upon. That the peremptory writ of mandamus thereupon issue in proper form directing the Board of County Canvassers to deduct from the total any ballots counted for any candidate for Governor which shall be found to be void and adding to said total any ballots cast for any candidate for Governor declared to be void by the Inspectors of Election, but found by this Court to be valid ballots, and likewise adding to the total any ballot cast for any candidate held by the Inspectors to be wholly blank which this Court shall find to have been a legal ballot cast for any candidate for Governor."
Schedule A annexed to it stated the number of void and the number of blank ballots in each election district in the county of Richmond. The aggregate number of the former was one hundred and seventy and of the latter two hundred and fifty-eight.
The application so made was opposed by the argument of counsel. The Special Term ordered: "That the said motion be, and the same hereby is granted, and it is further ordered, that the application of Alfred E. Smith to vacate the stay contained in said order against the *Page 6 
Board of County Canvassers of the County of Richmond be denied; and it is further ordered, that the canvass applied for by the said Charles S. Whitman be begun before this Court at 10 A.M. on November 26th, 1918."
Upon the appeal of Alfred E. Smith, the Appellate Division made the order: "The order of the Special Term of the Supreme Court, held in and for the County of Richmond, at the Court House at St. George, Staten Island, N.Y., on the 25th day of November, 1918, and granted on said day, is hereby modified so as to read as follows: Ordered, that the said motion of Charles S. Whitman for a judicial review of the ballots cast be granted, and it is further ordered, that the Clerk of the County of Richmond produce the packages containing the protested, void and blank ballots at the special term of the Supreme Court for Richmond County at 10 A.M. on Monday, December 2, 1918, where these proceedings are pending. That upon the result of such judicial review a writ of mandamus may issue to the County Canvassers as the Special Term may direct. Upon consent of applicant's counsel in open court, the present stay against the County Canvassers is vacated without prejudice to any further application therefor, should it become necessary. And as thus modified the order appealed from is affirmed, without costs. For the purpose of this proceeding, Mr. Justice FAWCETT is hereby assigned to the Special Term of Richmond County from and after December 2d 1918, at 10 A.M., until such proceedings shall be completed."
Section 381 of the Election Law (Cons. Laws, chapter 17) is: "Judicial Investigation of Ballots. If any statement of the result of the canvass in an election district shall show that any of the ballots counted at an election therein were protested or were canvassed as wholly blank or void, a writ of mandamus may, upon the application of any candidate voted for at such election in such *Page 7 
district, within twenty days thereafter, issue out of the supreme court to the board or body of canvassers, if any, of the return of the inspectors of such election district, and otherwise to the inspectors of election making such statement, requiring a re-canvass of such ballots. If the court shall, in the proceedings upon such writ, determine that any such ballot was improperly canvassed, it shall order the error to be corrected. Boards of inspectors of election districts, and boards of canvassers, shall continue in office for the purpose of such proceedings."
Its purpose and scope are not obscure or doubtful. The courts must adhere to and cannot enlarge them. (Matter of Tamney v.Atkins, 209 N.Y. 202.) In no class of litigations is a strict and impartial adherence to the established rules of procedure and legal principles more essential or conservative of public quietude and respect for law than in the class in which is the case at the bar. The electors of the several parties and their candidates are justly and wisely sensitive to any departure of the courts from such adherence. The section empowers the court, under the requisite allegations in behalf of a candidate voted for at an election, and sufficient proofs, to require through a writ of mandamus the board of canvassers of the return of the inspectors of election to re-canvass, and correct the errors in the original canvass of, the protested or the void or the blank ballots.
The writ of mandamus authorized by section 381 is the ordinary writ. (People ex rel. Hasbrouck v. Supervisors, Dutchess Co.,135 N.Y. 522; People ex rel. Bantel v. Morgan, 20 App. Div. 48;People ex rel. Perry v. Board of Canvassers, SullivanCo., 88 App. Div. 185.) The legislature did not, by the language of the section, invest it with unique or extraordinary characteristics. The ordinary and established rules and procedure, statutory, at common law and judicial, authorizing and regulating the issuance of a writ of mandamus are applicable to it. *Page 8 
There is no provision of the section 381 or of the Election Law inconsistent with such conclusion. In enacting the section, the legislature did not intend or contemplate, and the section does not enact, that the candidate, through his mere expressed wish, can move the court to act as a supervising or appellate canvasser of the protested, void or blank ballots, or to enter upon a judicial investigation of those ballots in order to ascertain, for any use or end, what result would ensue. The court can be moved only by allegations of the nature and quality essential, under the settled rules, on the part of an applicant for the issuance of the writ of mandamus as provided by the common law or by the Code of Civil Procedure. (Sections 2067-2090.)
It is neither necessary nor useful to attempt to state those rules. They are known to the counsel at the bar. A fundamental rule is that an applicant for the writ of mandamus must, by written and verified allegations, present to the court facts which, if true and unavoided by the defensive facts, prove that he is under a grievance or injury which the writ would remedy and that he is entitled to that remedy. A writ of mandamus issues only where a clear legal right is made to appear. (People exrel. McMackin v. Board of Police, N.Y. City, 107 N.Y. 235;People ex rel. Stevens v. Hayt, 66 N.Y. 606.) The function of the courts is to determine actual controversies between litigants. The law is practical and has as its purpose to adjudge, through just and general principles and precedents, investing it with certitude and continuity, the actual disputes growing out of the conduct and transactions of those under its jurisdiction. (Matter of Resolution State IndustrialCommission, 224 N.Y. 13; Blanchard v. Blanchard, 201 N.Y. 134. ) A suitor to the courts must present a grievance in the contemplation of the law and the facts from which it arises. Another established rule is that the averments presenting those *Page 9 
facts and essential to the issuance of the peremptory writ of mandamus cannot be upon the mere information and belief of the affiant. Our present chief judge, while Justice HISCOCK, in a proceeding like unto this at bar, well said: "The entire tendency of the courts is to require in affidavits which are to be made the basis of important orders and remedies the same kind of direct and legal statements of facts which would be required from a witness upon the stand, or where that cannot be had and statements based upon hearsay must be resorted to, a fortification of those statements by a clear recital of the information upon which they are based," and applied the rule to the case before him. (People ex rel. Watkins v. Board ofCanvassers, Oneida Co., 25 Misc. Rep. 444, 448.) This is in accord with our decisions. (Buell v. Van Camp, 119 N.Y. 160;People ex rel. Frost v. N.Y.C.  H.R.R.R. Co., 168 N.Y. 187.) We must, therefore, give no heed to statements of the affidavit of Mr. Whitman made upon mere information and belief.
The affidavit, obviously, did not empower the court to grant the order directing the issuance of the writ of mandamus. A detailed analysis of its contents and the expressed application to them of the rules we have stated are unnecessary. The affiant did not aver that the inspectors of elections made an error or omitted any duty. The court was bound, on and for the purpose of the application, to presume that everything was rightfully done by them until some evidence was produced to show the contrary. The general presumption is that an official does no act contrary to his official duty, or omits no act which his official duty requires. (Matter of Marcellus, 165 N.Y. 70.) From the facts stated in the affidavit, no grievance nor injury to Mr. Whitman arises, there is no wrong shown and, therefore, none to be remedied and no subject-matter upon which the writ *Page 10 
could operate. Section 381 authorizes exclusively the application for the writ, and the order for and its issuance in accordance with the established rules relating to that remedy. It does not contain any provision empowering the court to order the custodian of the protested, void or blank ballots to produce those ballots to the court for any purpose. And the court cannot by the effect of any of its provisions direct the production of them. If, in the course of the proceedings upon the application for the writ of mandamus under section 381, the production and inspection or investigation of those ballots is deemed by the trial court, or Special Term, aidful or desirable, it can by its order secure those results by virtue of the provision, as follows, of section 437: "The packages of protested, void and wholly blank ballots shall be retained inviolate in the office in which they are filed subject to the order and examination of a court of competent jurisdiction, or to examination by a committee of the Senate or Assembly to investigate and report on a contested election of member of the Legislature where such ballots were cast at such election, and may be destroyed at the end of six months from the time of the completion of such canvass, unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction or unless such committee examination be pending." It is manifest that the words of section 381, "In the proceedings upon such writ," are the equivalent of the words, "in the proceedings upon the application for such writ." It follows from what we have written that the order of the Special Term was erroneously granted. It should have dismissed the proceeding.
We turn now to the order of the Appellate Division. In section 381 there is not the authorization to that court for any one of the provisions or directions of that order. The section authorizes the application for, under proper verified averments, and the *Page 11 
issuance of the writ of mandamus, upon adequate proofs, under facts and a condition expressed by it and which at common law do not warrant the application or issuance. No provision of it empowers the Appellate Division to institute or order, as a proceeding, "a judicial review of the ballots cast," or to order the Special Term to enter upon and conduct such a review or, in the first instance, to order the Special Term to inspect or investigate the ballots or to order the custodian of the ballots to produce them before the Special Term. The proceeding presented to the Appellate Division is converted by its order into a proceeding independent of and unrelated to that provided by section 381. In truth and in fact the order institutes a new proceeding which is wholly without the authorization of that section, and as we have said, independent of and unrelated to the proceeding it provides. Neither the title in the order nor the intention of the court can destroy the reality. We must take cognizance of that which actually exists and must, therefore, regard and hold the order to institute a new and distinct special proceeding. To do otherwise would sanction the injustice of disregarding that which is substantial and actual and of being controlled by mere nomenclature and form.
Certain of my brethren, who concur in this opinion, hold the view that a provision of section 374 may be the basis of the order of the Appellate Division. The provision is: "Any candidate shall be entitled as of right to an examination in person or by authorized agents of any ballots upon which his name lawfully appeared as that of a candidate; but the court shall prescribe such conditions as of notice to other candidates or otherwise as it shall deem necessary and proper." While the order, certainly, affords the relief or remedy thus provided, and which Mr. Whitman stated in his affidavit he had not yet succeeded in securing, we do not consider or determine *Page 12 
whether or not such view is correct, because the proceeding was expressly and concededly commenced, and from the beginning has been opposed, under section 381. The law does not permit a party or the court to abandon, for another, the theory upon which a proceeding or an action has been commenced and prosecuted. (Racine v. Morris, 201 N.Y. 240; Stephens v. MeridenBritannia Co., 160 N.Y. 178.)
The respondent urges that the appeal to this court from the order will not lie, and for the two reasons: the order was unanimously made; it is not a final order. The first reason is answered by the fact that the order is one of modification and is within subdivision 1 of section 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The second reason is covered by the fact that the order instituted a proceeding distinct, independent and involving no further or future order.
The order of the Appellate Division and that of the Special Term should be reversed and the proceeding dismissed, without costs.