Maryland case law › Jones v. Monroe

Jones v. Monroe

86 Md. 333 (1897) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedPage, J.✓ Good law
HoldingPetitioners, candidates for municipal office in Annapolis, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the supervisors of election for Anne Arundel County and other election officials to conduct the upcoming city election under the Act of 1896, ch.

Page, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The petition in this case was filed by persons who are candidates for certain positions in the municipal government of Annapolis. It al eges that the election will take place on the twelfth day of July next, but that the supervisors of election for Anne Arundel County, and other election officials who served as judges and clerks of election at the last general election, refuse to take “ any action in regard to the conduct of said election, because they are not satisfied with regard to the extent of their authority over the same.” The petitioners pray for a writ of mandamus, requiring the defendants to proceed to do such things as may be required 334 under the Act of 1896, ch. 202, to conduct the election according to the provisions of that Act. The answer of the defendants admits the facts set forth in petition, but allege that the municipal election of the city oí Annapolis under the provisions of sec. 13 of Act of 1896, ch. 202, are excepted from the jurisdiction and control oí the supervisors of election and of the judges and clerks oí election appointed by them, and are controlled by the provisions of chapter 533 of Acts of 1894.

The only question in the case, therefore, is, whether the Act of 1894, chapter 533, has been repealed by the Act of 1896, ch. 202. The former Act provides that sec. 160 oí Article 33 of the Code as enacted by chapter 538 of the Act of 1890, and the provisions of new section 166 of the same Article, as enacted by chapter 701 of the Acts of 1892, shall not apply to municipal elections in the city of Annapolis. It further provides that the corporation shall appoint three persons to be judges of “its municipal elections, any two of whom shall have power to hold su.ch election,” and shall also appoint the necessary clerks. The judges and clerks so appointed are to qualify before the Mayor or any justice of the peace of the city, and in the execution of their duties and in the manner of conducting elections, they are to conform “ in every respect to the provisions of the Code,” &c.

This is a preview of Jones v. Monroe. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.