From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Owens v. Heartsill

Supreme Court of Alabama
Apr 12, 1966
185 So. 2d 382 (Ala. 1966)

Summary

In Owens v. Heartsill, 279 Ala. 359, 185 So.2d 382 (1966), Guy Owens failed to follow the requirements of law, just as Jones had done.

Summary of this case from Dunning v. Reynolds

Opinion

3 Div. 233.

April 12, 1966.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Butler County, James A. Hare, Special Judge.

Ira DeMent, Montgomery, for appellant.

Rogers, Rogers Scott, Greenville, for appellee.


This is a companion case to Jones v. Phillips, 185 So.2d 378, this day announced.

Appellant Guy Owens had declared himself as a candidate for Representative in the Legislature from the Thirty-Sixth District, Place No. 2, comprised of Butler, Crenshaw and Pike Counties.

Appellee Heartsill procured a temporary injunction against the probate judges of the three counties enjoining them from placing Owens' name on the ballot. Owens was permitted to intervene, moved to dissolve the temporary injunction, and after a hearing, the motion to dissolve was denied and this appeal followed.

Appellant filed his declaration of candidacy with the Chairman of the State Democratic Executive Committee on February 3, 1966, and a copy of this declaration with the Secretary of State on February 2, 1966. But he did not file the statement required by Tit. 17, § 274, as amended, with Judge of Probate of Pike County until February 11, 1966, with the Judge of Probate of Crenshaw County until February 15, 1966, or with the Judge of Probate of Butler County until February 28, 1966. All of these dates of filing are more than five days after his filing with the Chairman of the State Democratic Executive Committee.

The same principles of law apply here as in the case of Jones v. Phillips, ante p. 354, 185 So.2d 378, this day announced; and on the authority of that case, the decree of the lower court must be affirmed.

This case was argued orally and submitted to the court on April 7, 1966. This court affirmed the decree of the lower court on April 8, 1966, but since time was urgent and it was imperative that the probate judges of the four counties be able to correctly prepare the ballots for the election, we did not then prepare an opinion but notified the parties that an opinion would follow. This opinion is in compliance therewith. McCutcheon v. Thomas, 261 Ala. 688, 75 So.2d 649; Ex parte Brassell, 261 Ala. 265, 73 So.2d 907.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Owens v. Heartsill

Supreme Court of Alabama
Apr 12, 1966
185 So. 2d 382 (Ala. 1966)

In Owens v. Heartsill, 279 Ala. 359, 185 So.2d 382 (1966), Guy Owens failed to follow the requirements of law, just as Jones had done.

Summary of this case from Dunning v. Reynolds
Case details for

Owens v. Heartsill

Case Details

Full title:Guy OWENS v. C. H. HEARTSILL

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Apr 12, 1966

Citations

185 So. 2d 382 (Ala. 1966)
185 So. 2d 382

Citing Cases

Hadnott v. Amos

The suggestion that all of them are to be exposed to criminal action is not tenable. E.g., Herndon v. Lee,…

Dunning v. Reynolds

"In two cases, we have already decided that the name of a candidate shall not be allowed to go on the ballot…