Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Patrick F. White, Appellant, v. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Albany, as The Board of County Canvassers, et al., Respondents, 1908 — 192 N.Y. 539 · caselaw · US
General
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Patrick F. White, Appellant, v. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Albany, as The Board of County Canvassers, et al., Respondents
192 N.Y. 539·New York Court of Appeals·1908·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Patrick F. White, Appellant, v. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Albany, as The Board of County Canvassers, et al., Respondents.
People ex rel. White v. Bd. of Supervisors, 125 App. Div. 914. affirmed.
(Argued April 1, 1908;
decided April 21, 1908.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered March 24, 1908, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to an alternative writ of mandamus. -
The following questions were certified:
“1. Does the alternative writ of mandamus state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or grievance to . redress which a writ of mandamus could be issued, so far as the ballots mentioned in said writ and contained in the ballot boxes containing the ballots of the various election districts of the eighth ward of the city of Albany and deposited with the city clerk of the city of Albany, are concerned ?
“ 2. Has the Supreme Court jurisdiction under section 114 of the Election Law or under its general power, authority and jurisdiction to determine in this proceeding as to the validity of the ballots mentioned in said writ, contained in the boxes deposited with the said city clerk, and to order a recount and recanvass of such ballots such as provided by said section 114?
“ 3. Is there a defect of parties defendant ? ”
Charles B. Templeton for appellant.
Daniel J. Dugan for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs. First and second questions certified answered in the negative ; third question not answered; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.