Blake v. Brothers

9 Citing cases

  1. Boney v. Sims

    304 Mo. 369 (Mo. 1924)   Cited 14 times

    Wilson v. Washington Co., 247 S.W. 185; State ex rel. Wahl v. Speer, 284 Mo. 45, 58; State ex rel. Ray County v. Hackmann, 295 Mo. 417, 424. (4) The judges and clerks of the election in question acted judicially or quasi-judicially; their certificate or declaration of the result of the election cannot be reexamined judicially; the right of citizens to honest elections is meant by the law to be protected by such judges and clerks; this protection has been deemed by the Legislature sufficient in case of election like the one in controversy. Wilson v. Washington Co., 247 S.W. 187; State ex rel. Wahl v. Speer, 284 Mo. 45, 58; State ex rel. Ray County v. Hackmann, 295 Mo. 417, 424; Piker v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491; McGowan v. Gordner, 186 Mo. App. 484, 492; Blake v. Brothers, 79 Conn. 676, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 501 and note. J.H. Whitecotton, A.R. Hammett and A.C. Gladney for respondents.

  2. Blake v. Mason

    82 Conn. 324 (Conn. 1909)   Cited 17 times

    The plaintiff's purpose in instituting this action, as in those heretofore begun by him, was to secure a judicial declaration that those provisions of our statutes regulating the exercise of the right of suffrage which prescribe the disposition to be made of ballots marked in violation of the regulations contained in the statutes, are unconstitutional and void. No charge is made that the defendant, as the moderator whose action is made the subject of the suit, acted otherwise than as he was commanded to do, or that he was actuated in what he did by malice or improper motive. The plaintiff's purpose is to reach the statute, and his complaint has avowedly been drawn to state a case which is not within the ruling of this court in Blake v. Brothers, 79 Conn. 676, 66 A. 501. Its allegations are studiously framed so that it should appear that the only act of the defendant which is complained of and made the basis of recovery is that of refusing to count or to permit to be counted the plaintiff's ballot, and of pursuing in respect to it the course directed by statute. It is contended that this act was a ministerial one, pure and simple; that therefore, in respect to it, the defendant cannot avail himself of the protection afforded to one who is engaged in the performance of a discretionary or quasi-judicial act; and that, as a corollary of this latter proposition, the principles enunciated in Blake v. Brothers have no application to the situation now presented.

  3. Pluhowsky v. New Haven

    151 Conn. 337 (Conn. 1964)   Cited 56 times
    Affirming judgment in favor of defendant city on claim of design defect in light of expert testimony as to adequacy of design and evidence that dangerous condition not created by city

    Blake v. Mason, 82 Conn. 324, 327, 73 A. 782. An example of such a ministerial duty is that of a town clerk to record an instrument which he has accepted for recordation in the land records, as in Willet v. Hutchinson, 2 Root 85, 86. A ministerial duty on the part of an official often follows a quasi-judicial determination by that official as to the existence of a state of facts. Although the determination itself involves the exercise of judgment, and therefore is not a ministerial act, the duty of giving effect, by taking appropriate action, to the determination is often ministerial. Blake v. Brothers, 79 Conn. 676, 678, 66 A. 501; Blake v. Mason, supra. In Leger v. Kelley, 142 Conn. 585, 589, 116 A.2d 429, the determination by the motor vehicles commissioner as to whether the car in question was manufactured after July 1, 1937, and, if so, whether it was equipped with a type of safety glass approved by him, was quasi-judicial and not ministerial. After that determination had been made, the commissioner's duty of registering or refusing to register the car, according to the determination which he had reached, was ministerial, since the commissioner had no discretion in the matter.

  4. Fisher v. Kallenbach

    62 A.2d 336 (Conn. 1948)   Cited 7 times

    In Connecticut, election officials who act In good faith and within their jurisdiction are exempt from liability. Perry v. Reynolds, 53 Conn. 527, 536, 3 A. 555; Blake v. Brothers, 79 Conn. 676, 679, 66 A. 501; Blake v. Mason, 82 Conn. 324, 329, 73 A. 782. There is no allegation of bad faith or of acts from which bad faith reasonably can be inferred. General Statutes, Sup. 1945, 60h, created the office of first selectman. If the plaintiff did not have the right to vote for two persons for first selectman, the election officials were merely performing their duty and acting within their jurisdiction, and the decision on the demurrer was correct.

  5. State ex Rel. City of Clarence v. Drain

    335 Mo. 741 (Mo. 1934)   Cited 18 times

    In the performance of this duty, the judges act in a judicial or a quasi-judicial capacity. [Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491; McGowan v. Gardner, 186 Mo. App. 484, 492, 172 S.W. 408; Blake v. Brothers, 79 Conn. 676, 66 A. 501, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 501, and citation in note.] The right is also accorded to any bystander to challenge a vote.

  6. State ex Rel. Richardson v. Baldry

    331 Mo. 1006 (Mo. 1932)   Cited 12 times

    It has been held that election officials in determining the qualifications of persons presenting themselves as voters act in a quasi-judicial capacity. [State ex rel. Wahl et al. v. Speer et al., 284 Mo. 45, 59, 223 S.W. 655, 659; Pike v. Megoun et al., 44 Mo. 491; McGowan v. Gardner. 186 Mo. App. 484, 172 S.W. 408; Blake v. Brothers, 79 Conn. 676, 66 A. 501, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 501.] [2] It is well established that while mandamus will lie to compel an inferior tribunal, charged with duties the discharge of which requires the exercise of judgment or discretion, to act, the court will not by such proceeding attempt to control such discretionary action or direct how the inferior tribunal shall act. [State ex rel. Meyer v. Woodbury et al., 321 Mo. 275, 10 S.W.2d 524; 38 C.J. p. 725 et seq., secs. 12 and 13.] In this case, as suggested above, the writ was sought not merely to command the ministerial duty of canvassing or counting votes cast and which had been accepted by the officials authorized to receive them and with the validity of which votes the persons sought to be mandamused had no concern, but to command the acceptance and counting by respondents of votes which they had rejected in the belief that the persons offering to cast such votes were not entitled to vote.

  7. Long v. Consolidated School Dist

    331 Mo. 302 (Mo. 1932)   Cited 10 times

    In the performance of this duty, the judges act in a judicial or a quasi-judicial capacity. [Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491: McGowan v. Gardner, 186 Mo. App. 484, 492; Blake v. Brothers, 79 Conn. 676, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 501, and citations in note.] The right is also accorded to any bystander to challenge a vote.

  8. National Surety Co. v. Miller

    155 Miss. 115 (Miss. 1929)   Cited 40 times

    A public officer, when acting in good faith, is never to be held liable for an erroneous judgment in a matter submitted to his determination. Donahoe v. Richards, 38 Me. 379; Kendell v. Stokes, 3 How. (U.S.) 87; Crowell v. McFadden, 8 Cranch, 499; Tyler v. Cass County, 142 U.S. 288; Otis v. Watkins, 9 Cranch (U.S.) 339; Barry v. Smith, 191 Mass. 78, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1028; Kendell v. Stokes, 44 U.S. 87; Commercial Trust Co. of Haggerstown v. Burch, 267 Fed. 907; Jenkins v. Waldron, 11 Johns 114; Olefiers v. Belmont, 159 N.Y. 550, 54 N.E. 1093; Comanche County v. Burks, 166 S.W. 470; Salt Lake County v. Clinton, 117 P. 1075, 39 Utah 462; Guild v. Goodwin, 94 Tenn. 486, 27 L.R.A. 660; Daniel v. Hathaway, 65 Vt. 247, 21 L.R.A. 377; Cocking v. Wade, 87 Md. 529, 40 L.R.A. 628; Black v. Brothers, 79 Conn. 676; Belks v. Dickinson County, 131 Iowa 244, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 831; 91 American State Reports 517. Public officers in making contracts are acting judicially and where one makes a contract for a municipality which is invalid for want of authority, he is not personally liable thereon.

  9. State ex rel. Wahl v. Speer

    284 Mo. 45 (Mo. 1920)   Cited 57 times
    In State ex rel. Wahl v. Speer, 284 Mo. 45, 223 S.W. 655, 660, it is stated that "[t]he rule for interpreting statutes, that a power given carries with it, incidentally or by implication, powers not expressed, but necessary to render effective the one that is expressed, would require the construction that authority to incur a debt for the erection of a public building impliedly embraces authority to buy a site for it; and this for the plain reason that without a site the building cannot be erected.

    In the performance of this duty, the judges act in a judicial or a quasi-judicial capacity. [Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491; McGowan v. Gardner, 186 Mo. App. 484, 492; Blake v. Brothers, 79 Conn. 676, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 501, and citations in note.] The right is also accorded to any bystander to challenge a vote.