eBook details
- Title: William New v. Donald Corrough
- Author : Supreme Court of Missouri Division 2
- Release Date : January 09, 1963
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
This is an election contest involving the office of director of the Maryville R-II School District. There were four candidates for two vacancies on the six-man board of directors. The original notice of election contest was filed by William New and Raymond Younger against Harold Fields and Donald Corrough. The contestees Fields and Corrough were declared elected as the result of the regular canvass of the ballots cast at the election and were sworn in as members of the board of directors. The contest was dismissed as to contestee Fields prior to trial. Pursuant to a stipulation filed by the remaining parties which defined and simplified the issues, the trial court rendered an interlocutory decree making certain findings and ordering a recount of certain designated ballots. The disputed ballots were recounted and the trial court entered its final decree finding that Harold Fields and William New had received the highest number of votes cast and were lawfully elected to the two offices of school director at issue in the election. The decree further ordered the contestee Donald Corrough to relinquish and surrender to the contestant William New his office of school director. The contestee Corrough filed a motion for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the judgment which motion was overruled and he has appealed. Hence the only parties in this court are the appellant Donald Corrough, a contestee, and the respondent William New, a contestant. The supreme court has exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal from a final judgment in an action to contest the election of a school director because such action involves title to an ""office under this state"" within the meaning of the constitution. Art. V, § 3, Constitution of Missouri 1945; Bernhardt v. Long, 357 Mo. 427, 209 S.W.2d 112, 113[1]; State ex rel. Worsham v. Ellis, 329 Mo. 124, 44 S.W.2d 129[1].