{
  "id": 1633390,
  "name": "E. R. HENRY, Jr. et al v. C. C. STUART et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Henry v. Stuart",
  "decision_date": "1971-11-08",
  "docket_number": "5-5759",
  "first_page": "361",
  "last_page": "363",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 Ark. 361"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "473 S.W.2d 164"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "245 Ark. 53",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1606980
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/245/0053-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 Ark. 749",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1642628
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/225/0749-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 3059,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.825,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3178413104393345
    },
    "sha256": "f43836f200ae182013dba86a4b046c3ce4cd40aa6ccecfffc854030fa5b83ae4",
    "simhash": "1:9876cb47bddce25e",
    "word_count": 527
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:57.175988+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. R. HENRY, Jr. et al v. C. C. STUART et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Lyle Brown, Justice.\nAppellants are qualified electors and taxpayers of the Desha County School District. Appellees are members of the Desha County Board of Election Commissioners. Appellants brought this action in mandamus to require the appellees to recount the votes cast in an election for increasing the millage to erect a school building. On demurrer the circuit court dismissed the petition, holding that it had no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the board to perform an act which was discretionary. On appeal,, appellants contend that the writ should have been granted.\nThe statute provides that one who is dissatisfied with the returns from any precinct may have a recount at any time before the canvass of the votes is completed. Any dissatisfied party or parties may file a petition \u201cshowing reasonable grounds for believing that the return, as made by the judges of election, does not give a correct statement of the vote as actually cast, as the same is shown by the ballot returned with the certificate of the judges. . . .\u201d Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 3-508 (Supp. 1969).\nOf course we are not bound by the prayer for relief in determining whether appellants stated a cause of action. We look at all the facts stated in the pleading to determine whether mandamus is appropriate. See Culp v. Scurlock, 225 Ark. 749, 284 S. W. 2d 851 (1955). If the facts alleged \u201centitle the plaintiff to any relief, either legal or equitable, although they may not entitle him to all the relief prayed for, the complaint is not subject to demurrer upon the ground that its allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action.\u201d 41 Am. Jur., Pleading \u00a7 110.\nIt is asserted in appellants\u2019 pleading that they petitioned the board of election commissioners for a recount and that the board \u201cdeclined to consider the petition.\u201d In other words the fact is alleged that the board refused to act, one way or the other, on the petition for recount. If that fact is established on hearing in the circuit court then that court would have authority to direct the board, acting with sound discretion, to take action and either grant or deny the petition. The court cannot order the board to recount the votes, as requested in appellants\u2019 petition. That is because the board must find, as a prerequisite to a recount, that there are reasonable grounds for believing the returns are incorrect. That is clearly not a ministerial act but an act of discretion. \u201cOur law holds that the writ of mandamus will not be granted to review the exercise of discretion of an officer or official board, but can be invoked only to compel the officer or board to exercise such discretion.\u201d Ellis v. Rockefeller, 245 Ark. 53, 431 S. W. 2d 848 (1968).\nAppellants are entitled to a hearing on their allegation that the board of election commissioners has refused to act on their petition.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lyle Brown, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dickey, Dickey & Drake, for appellants.",
      "Gill ir Clayton, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. R. HENRY, Jr. et al v. C. C. STUART et al\n5-5759\n473 S.W. 2d 164\nOpinion delivered November 8, 1971\nDickey, Dickey & Drake, for appellants.\nGill ir Clayton, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0361-01",
  "first_page_order": 387,
  "last_page_order": 389
}