Proctor v. Brookhart

Grason, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents for review the correctness of the decree filed by the Chancellor below, in which he sustained a demurrer to the bill of complaint, and dismissed the bill. William W. Proctor and Dorothy P. Proctor, his wife, reside at Cardiff, Harford County, Maryland, and are taxpayers in that County, and of the State of Maryland. They sued George A. Brookhart, W. Leroy McMaster, ²⁰³ James Johnson, comprising the Board of Election Supervisors of Harford County, Hugh M. Laird, W. Lee Linkous, Milton R. Walker, comprising the County Commissioners of Harford County, and Street Bowman, Treasurer of Harford County.

The Shoup Voting Machine Corporation intervened as a defendant. This case grows out of a contract under which the Shoup Voting Machine Corporation agreed to sell to the Supervisors of Elections of Harford County and to the County Commissioners of Harford County voting machines. The Board of Supervisors of Elections invited bids for certain types of voting machines to be constructed in accordance with Section 87 of Article 33 of the 1947 Supplement to the Code. By the Acts of 1949, Chapter 734, the Board of Supervisors of Elections, with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners of Harford County, were authorized to purchase voting machines for use in general, primary and special elections in Harford County.

The Shoup Voting Machine Corporation and the Automatic Voting Machine Corporation submitted bids. The contract was awarded to the Shoup Voting Machine Corporation. The bill in this case charges that the Board of Supervisors of Elections and the Board of County Commissioners are without power to enter into the contract with the Shoup Voting Machine Corporation as they did in their contract dated October 4, 1949, because the machines contracted for will not be built in accordance with the provisions of Section 87, supra, and that therefore the contract is ultra vires, null and void. The bill in this case does not charge that the Supervisors or Commissioners were actuated by fraud in entering into this contract with the Shoup Voting Machine Corporation for the voting machines, and at the argument, appellants disclaimed that there was any fraud in the matter whatsoever, but admitted the contract was entered into in good faith and for the purpose of carrying out their duty in accordance with the Act referred to.

The bill is quite long and makes many charges which ²⁰⁴ were not mentioned in the brief or in the argument by the appellants. The bill charges that the plans and specifications of the Shoup Voting Machine Corporation are not in accordance with subparagraphs (e), (r), (I), (j) and (h) of Section 87, supra. In fact, the bill charges generally that the Shoup machine does everything that it should not do and fails to do what it should do as required by Section 87, supra. Therefore there is no legal health in this machine.

One specific charge is “that the said Shoup voting machine does not ‘preclude each voter from voting for more persons for any office than he is entitled to vote for, and from voting for any candidate for the same office or upon any question more than once’, as required by paragraph (e) of said Section