WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
CHAS. E. LANG, ET AL., DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a mandamus judgment requiring the county board of public instruction to receive and canvass amended election returns for the creation of a special tax school district in Hillsborough County. The court held that both the election inspectors and the board had a continuing duty to properly process and canvass election returns.
The court held that the board had a continuing statutory duty to canvass election returns as made by inspectors and clerks, and that mandamus was an appropriate remedy to enforce this ministerial duty. Amended returns could be received and canvassed according to law.
“It was and is a continuing duty of the inspectors and clerk who conducted the election to make a proper return of the result of the election. A similar continuing duty rests upon the county board of public instruction "to canvass the returns of election as made to it by the inspectors and clerks of election, and declare the results."”
Establishes the statutory basis for the board's mandatory duty to canvass election returns
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn election was held in Hillsborough County to establish Ruskin District No. 55 as a special tax school district and to elect three trustees. The elec…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Whitfield, J.
An election was held in a given territory in Hillsborough County to establish a special tax school district under the constitution and Sections 399 et seq., of the General Statutes of 1906, to be known as Ruskin District No. 55, and for the election of three trustees and to determine the millage tax to be levied for such school sub-district purposes. The inspectors and clerk who conducted the election made as a return a signed statement that “a majority of the electors, resident in said territory and qualified according to law, did vote to create such special tax school district and the district is established,” and that they “do recommend as entitled to receive commissions as trustees of said special tax school district No. 55, and otherwise known as Ruskin school district,” L. L. Dickman, Chas. E. Lang, and L. W. Amlong, they “having received the highest number of votes cast for trustees at said election.”
The county board of public instruction, whose duty il is under the statute, to “canvass the returns of election as made to it by the inspectors and clerks of election and declare the result,” declared on the return as made that no Ruskin District special tax school district had been established to be known as No. 55. Amended returns were offered by the inspectors, but the board declined to receive and canvass such offered amended returns; and in mandamus proceedings the Circuit Judge ordered in effect that the board do receive and canvass the same according to law. A writ of error was taken by the board to the final judgment.
The contention that the board could not receive and canvass the amended returns and that the remedy is by calling another election is without merit. It was and is a continuing duty of the inspectors and clerk who conducted the election to make a proper return of the result of the election. A similar continuing duty rests upon the county board of public instruction “to canvass the returns of election as made to it by the inspectors and clerks of election, and declare the results.” Sec. 403 Gen. Stats. 1906.
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to enforce the per formance of a specific official duty of a ministerial character imposed by law. See State ex rel. Bloxham v. Gibbs, 13 Fla. 55, 7 Am. Rep. 233; State ex rel. Bisbee, Jr., v. Board of State Canvassers, 17 Fla. 29; D’Alembert v. State ex rel. Mays, 56 Fla. 162, 47 South. Rep. 489.
Eo fraud is alleged. It is not necessary to discuss other questions sought to be presented.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, O. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hock-er, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Knott, 72 Fla. 176 (Fla. 1916)…they cannot be compelled to do so. Election officers may by man [*207] ciamus be required to correct mistakes made in their return. See State v. County Judge, 13 Iowa 139. The duty to make a correct return is a continuing one. See Schneider v. Lang, 66 Fla. 492, 63 South. Rep. 913. The statute provides that “the poll lists and oaths of the inspectors and clerks, together with all ballot boxes, ballots, ballot stubs, memoranda and papers of all kinds used by the inspectors and clerks in conducting such ele…1 / 2
-
State v. Latham, 125 Fla. 793 (Fla. 1936)…s involving the same principle. In the case of Drew v. State Canvassing Board, 16 Fla. 17, the Secretary of State, Attorney General and Comptroller were required to ‘meet, canvass and reassemble’ as a Board of State Canvassers. In Schneider v. Lang, 66 Fla. 492, 63 South. Rep. 913, it was said that ‘It was and is a continuing duty of the inspectors and clerks who conduct the election to make a proper return of the result of the election. A similar duty rests upon the county board of public instruction to c…
-
State v. Knott, 72 Fla. 232 (Fla. 1916)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. William D. Bloxham v. Gibbs, 13 Fla. 55 (Fla. 1869)
- D'Alemberte v. State ex rel. D. H. Mays, 56 Fla. 162 (Fla. 1908)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. H. Bisbee, Jr. v. The Bd. of State Canvassers, 17 Fla. 29 (Fla. 1879)