From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartigan v. Jordan

Supreme Court of California
Oct 11, 1920
184 Cal. 72 (Cal. 1920)

Opinion

S. F. No. 9613.

October 11, 1920.

APPLICATION for Writ of Mandamus to compel printing of name of candidate on general election ballot. Denied.

The petitioner was a candidate for election to the office of member of the assembly for an assembly district in the City and County of San Francisco.

William Hartigan, in pro. per., for Petitioner.


Petitioner's nomination papers under section 1188 of the Political Code were not presented to the registrar of the city and county of San Francisco for examination until September 25, 1920. This was not forty days prior to the general election of November 2, 1920. It results that he is not entitled to have his name go on the ballot. (Pol. Code, sec. 1188; Primary Law, sec. 5, [Stats. 1913, p. 1383].)

The application is denied.

All the Justices concurred.


Summaries of

Hartigan v. Jordan

Supreme Court of California
Oct 11, 1920
184 Cal. 72 (Cal. 1920)
Case details for

Hartigan v. Jordan

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM HARTIGAN, Petitioner, v. FRANK C. JORDAN, as Secretary of the…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 11, 1920

Citations

184 Cal. 72 (Cal. 1920)
192 P. 1084

Citing Cases

McKesson v. Donaghue

The word "shall," it has been shown, is expressly made mandatory by section 15 of the Elections Code. It has…