From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Haskell v. Voorhis

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 26, 1927
158 N.E. 613 (N.Y. 1927)

Opinion

Argued October 25, 1927

Decided October 26, 1927

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

David F. Price and Reuben L. Haskell for appellant.

George P. Nicholson, Corporation Counsel ( Joseph P. Reilly of counsel), for respondents.

Albert Conway for Democratic County Committee of Kings County.


We hold in the circumstances of this case that there was no unjust discrimination to the prejudice of the petitioner.

The Anti-Dry League nominated a single candidate for a single office. A member of that league would have no difficulty in finding the name of that candidate upon the machine, and would not be diverted by the form of the machine into a belief that the name of such candidate was to be looked for elsewhere.

The question is not here whether unfairness or prejudice would result if the League had nominated other candidates whose names were placed upon a separate horizontal column to the exclusion of the petitioner's, and as to that we express no opinion.

The order should be affirmed without costs.

CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, ANDREWS, LEHMAN and O'BRIEN, JJ., concur; KELLOGG, J., dissents.

Order affirmed, etc.


Summaries of

Matter of Haskell v. Voorhis

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 26, 1927
158 N.E. 613 (N.Y. 1927)
Case details for

Matter of Haskell v. Voorhis

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of REUBEN L. HASKELL, Appellant, against JOHN H. VOORHIS et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 26, 1927

Citations

158 N.E. 613 (N.Y. 1927)
158 N.E. 613

Citing Cases

Matter of Shaeffer

The Legislature evidently perceived no resulting confusion and disadvantage from such an arrangement, and…

Matter of Robinson v. Brock

We reach the conclusion, therefore, that a person who is the sole candidate of an independent body is not by…