{ "id": 8574337, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA EX REL. RANDY D. DUNCAN v. BENJAMIN H. BEACH, L. OLIVER NOBLE, JR., THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, THE HONORABLE JAMES B. HUNT, JR., GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA", "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Duncan v. Beach", "decision_date": "1978-04-17", "docket_number": "No. 22", "first_page": "713", "last_page": "721", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "294 N.C. 713" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "18 N.C. 61", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8685140 ], "year": 1834, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/18/0061-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S.E. 2d 594", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 264", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624649 ], "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 N.C. 505", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2090185 ], "year": 1868, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/61/0505-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 S.E. 1005", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1891, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N.C. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650255 ], "year": 1891, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/108/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 S.E. 808", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1901, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 N.C. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661546 ], "year": 1901, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/128/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 N.C. 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8696378 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1875, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/73/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 S.E. 2d 372", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631084 ], "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0560-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 A.L.R. 319", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "346" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 N.W. 2d 523", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 S.E. 476", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1917, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "477" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 N.C. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11252696 ], "year": 1917, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "115" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/174/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 Ala. 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 5258640 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ala/263/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 Ark. 682", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1650389 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/223/0682-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 S.E. 768", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272111 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1913, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589-90" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/162/0588-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 713, "char_count": 19994, "ocr_confidence": 0.782, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0615698161390556e-07, "percentile": 0.5572205174896298 }, "sha256": "7b88f89769486dd77f28bcf5febc5655cf1f697e5ec98cc1f422197cd260bb89", "simhash": "1:c3a45000e15e6ec6", "word_count": 3416 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:40.522690+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA EX REL. RANDY D. DUNCAN v. BENJAMIN H. BEACH, L. OLIVER NOBLE, JR., THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, THE HONORABLE JAMES B. HUNT, JR., GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MOORE, Justice.\nThe uncontested facts of this case are as follows:\nOn 26 April 1973, the plaintiff-relator, Randy D. Duncan, was lawfully appointed to fill the office of Judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court Division, Twenty-Fifth Judicial District of the State of North Carolina. He held said office until 30 November 1974 when he was replaced in office by defendant, Benjamin H. Beach.\nIn the General Election of 5 November 1974, the plaintiff was the duly qualified nominee of the Republican Party for the office of District Court Judge, Twenty-Fifth Judicial District. The defendant Benjamin H. Beach was the certified nominee of the Democratic Party for that judicial seat then held by plaintiff Duncan. There were no other candidates for the office.\nDefendant Beach obtained a majority of the votes in that election, approximately 29,701 votes as opposed to the approximate 26,157 votes cast for plaintiff-relator. Plaintiff Duncan served until 30 November 1974, the end of his term, and on 2 December 1974 defendant Beach was sworn in and assumed the office of district court judge without objection from plaintiff.\nPrior to this election, defendant Beach had attained the age of seventy (70) years, on 7 April 1974, and thus under G.S. 7A-4.20(a) was not eligible at the time of his election to hold the office of district court judge. This fact was not known by plaintiff-relator, nor was it called to the attention of the State Board of Elections or the general public. Defendant Beach was thus certified by the State Board of Elections as the nominee of his party, and, after the election, he was duly sworn into office. Beach served as district court judge until 31 March 1977, at which time he resigned at the request of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts due to his ineligibility to hold office by virtue of his age. Thereafter, the defendant, Honorable James B. Hunt, Jr., as Governor of the State of North Carolina, appointed defendant L. Oliver Noble, Jr. to the judgeship vacated by defendant Beach. Judge Noble took the oath of office on 2 May 1977, and is presently serving in that capacity.\nThe plaintiff-relator claims that, because defendant Beach was ineligible to hold office prior to and at the time of the 1974 election due to his age, he, Duncan, is entitled to that position. The relief he seeks is the ouster of Noble and his own installation in the office. Plaintiff-relator advances basically three arguments for his entitlement to the office. The arguments rest on his claim that he holds de jure title to the office.\nPlaintiff\u2019s first argument for his claim of entitlement is as follows: G.S. 7A-4.20(a) provides that no judge of the superior or district courts may continue in office beyond the last day of the month in which he attains his seventieth birthday. Plaintiff contends that this statute implies that no person who has attained seventy years is legally qualified to serve as district court judge, and further implies that any person who is seventy years or older is not qualified to seek the office of district court judge by means of his election thereto. This being the case, plaintiff says, defendant Beach\u2019s nomination to the office was therefore a nullity, for he was not a legally qualified candidate. Plaintiff Duncan was thus the only legally qualified candidate for office. G.S. 163-110 holds that a sole candidate for a nomination is declared to be nominated. Plaintiff argues that, analogously, where there is only one qualified candidate for election, he should be declared elected \u2014 the choice of the voters.\nAlternatively, plaintiff argues that, since defendant Beach was ineligible to hold office, and thus ineligible to seek office, the votes cast for him are a nullity and cannot be counted. The candidate receiving the next highest number of votes, in this case plaintiff, is therefore elected to office.\nPlaintiff\u2019s final argument for his entitlement to office is based on his reading of G.S. 128-7. This statute says, \u201cAll officers shall continue in their respective offices until their successors are elected or appointed, and duly qualified.\u201d Plaintiff argues that he, as the incumbent, had the statutory right to continue in office until his successor was legally elected and qualified. Since defendant Beach was not qualified to hold office, he could not be legally elected thereto. Thus, plaintiff insists that he continued to hold de jure title to the office.\nThe conclusion to all of these arguments advanced by plaintiff is that he continues to hold de jure title to the office of district court judge. Article IV, Section 19, of the North Carolina Constitution says that the Governor shall fill all vacancies of office by appointment. Plaintiff argues, however, that there has been no vacancy in the office. That is, since he either held over in office under G.S. 128-7 or was duly elected by virtue of his being the sole qualified candidate, he must still hold de jure title to the office; thus the resignation of defendant Beach in 1977, while a factual \u201cvacating\u201d of the office, did not create a legal \u201cvacancy\u201d. Thus, plaintiff insists, the Governor\u2019s appointment of defendant Noble to fill the position vacated by Beach was unlawful, and this Court should order Noble removed from office and have plaintiff installed in his stead.\nIn his brief, plaintiff argues that \u201cwhere there is only one qualified candidate for election, it is far more in keeping with the democratic process and with the general rule of law that the sole qualified candidate be declared elected pursuant to his receipt of a majority of the legal votes rather than the office to be declared vacant, leaving the selection of the public servant not to the people but to the executive. . . .\u201d This appeal to \u201cthe democratic process\u201d is a sword which cuts both ways. For the inescapable fact in this case is that defendant Beach received a majority of the votes in the General Election on 5 November 1975. Regardless of whether defendant Beach was qualified to run, the one clear result of this election is that the plaintiff was rejected by the voters of the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District.\nIt has been said that \u201cit is a fundamental idea in all republican forms of government that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or a plurality of the legal votes cast in the election.\u201d 29 C.J.S., Elections \u00a7 243, and cases cited therein. See also State ex rel. Spruill v. Bateman, 162 N.C. 588, 77 S.E. 768 (1913). Accordingly, numerous courts have held that when a majority or plurality of votes are cast for an ineligible candidate, the fact that the winning candidate is ineligible and not qualified to take office does not entitle the runner-up to be declared elected to the contested office. See generally 29 C.J.S., Elections \u00a7 243, n. 93, and cases cited therein. The votes cast for an ineligible candidate, though not effective to entitle him to the office, are nonetheless not void; they are to be given effect in determining the result of the election as regards the other candidates. Cf. Clark v. Porter, 223 Ark. 682, 268 S.W. 2d 383; State v. Stacy, 263 Ala. 185, 82 So. 2d 264.\nThis Court, in State ex rel. Spruill v. Bateman, supra, has held accordingly. In that case the runner-up in the election, Spruill, alleged the winner\u2019s (Bateman\u2019s) ineligibility for office. The Court, in ruling on this objection, said:\n\u201c. . . Bateman having received the largest number of votes, Spruill was not elected. If Bateman is disqualified to act, there must be a resort to the process of filling the office, in case of a vacancy. . . . When the candidate receiving the highest vote is ineligible, that cannot make his opponent, who has been rejected by them, the choice of the people.\n* * *\n\u201c[A] candidate who receives fewer votes than are received by some other candidate cannot be said, under any circumstances, to be elected.\u201d\nSee also Cole v. Sanders, 174 N.C. 112, 115, 93 S.E. 476, 477 (1917).\nApplying these principles to the case at hand, the approximate 29,701 votes cast for defendant Beach, though not effective to give him legal entitlement to office because of his age, were nonetheless legally effective in excluding plaintiff Duncan from entitlement to that office. Neither candidate, therefore, had de jure title to the office of district court judge by virtue of the November 1974 election.\nPlaintiff argues, however, that since defendant\u2019s birth certificate was on file in the Caldwell County Registry, the age of defendant was a matter of public knowledge; and, that it has been held that where the voters have knowledge of the ineligibility of a candidate, the votes cast for him must not be counted, and the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes is deemed selected (citing State ex rel. Schmidt v. White, 257 Wisc. 560, 44 N.W. 2d 523 (1950)). Here plaintiff argues the English rule, adopted by but a few jurisdictions in the United States. The American rule, adopted by a majority of jurisdictions, holds that knowledge by the public of a candidate\u2019s ineligibility is immaterial. See generally 26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections \u00a7 294; 133 A.L.R. 319. Were this Court to adopt the English rule, plaintiff\u2019s position would not be improved. For those jurisdictions following the English rule hold that knowledge by the voters will not be presumed, but must be proven; notice of the disqualifying fact, and of the legal effect of it, must be given so directly to the voter that he can be charged with actual knowledge. See generally An-not. 133 A.L.R. at 346, and cases cited therein.\nIn any case, the clear implication of State ex rel. Spruill v. Bateman, supra, is that this State follows the American rule. In Bateman, the Court said, quoting Throop on Public Officers, Sec. 163: \u201cIn this country the great current of authorities sustains the doctrine that the ineligibility of the majority candidate does not elect the minority candidate. And this without reference to the question whether the voters knew of the ineligibility of the candidate for whom they voted. It is considered that in such a case the votes for the ineligible candidate are not void.\u201d 162 N.C. at 589-90. Thus, whether the public had knowledge of defendant Beach\u2019s ineligibility is immaterial.\nDefendant Beach assumed office on his being sworn in on 2 December 1974. Being ineligible to hold office by virtue of G.S. 7A-4.20(a), he did not hold office de jure. Judge Beach was, however, as plaintiff concedes, a judge de facto.\nA judge de jure exercises the office of judge as a matter of right. In order to become a judge de jure one must satisfy three requirements: (1) He must possess the legal qualifications for the judicial office in question; (2) he must be lawfully chosen to such office; and (3) he must have qualified himself to perform the duties of such office according to the mode prescribed by law. In re Wingler, 231 N.C. 560, 58 S.E. 2d 372 (1950); Norfleet v. Staton, 73 N.C. 546 (1875).\nA judge de facto is defined as \u201cone who occupies a judicial office under some color of right, and for the time being performs its duties with public acquiescence, though having no right in fact. . . .\u201d In re Wingler, supra, at 563. In order for one to be deemed a judge de facto, he must have satisfied the following four conditions:\n\u201c(1) He assumes to be the judge of a court which is established by law; (2) he is in possession of the judicial office in question, and is discharging its duties; (3) his incumbency of the judicial office is illegal in some respects; and (4) he has at least a fair color of right or title to the judicial office, or has acted as its occupant for so long a time and under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence by the public generally as are calculated to afford a presumption of his right to act and to induce people, without inquiry, to submit to or invoke official action on his part on the supposition that he is the judge he assumes to be.\u201d In re Wingler, supra, at 563.\nThe General Assembly has conferred express approval on the judicial doctrine of de facto office by enacting G.S. 128-6, which provides that \u201cAny person who shall, by the proper authority, be admitted and sworn into any office, shall be held, deemed, and taken, by force of such admission, to be rightfully in such office until, by judicial sentence, upon a proper proceeding, he shall be ousted therefrom, or his admission thereto be, in due course of law, declared void.\u201d\nA usurper in office is distinguished from a de facto officer in that a usurper takes possession of office and undertakes to act officially without any authority, either actual or apparent. Since he is not an officer at all or for any purpose, his acts are absolutely void, and they can be impeached at any time in any proceeding. In re Wingler, supra; State v. Shuford, 128 N.C. 588, 38 S.E. 808 (1901); Van Amringe v. Taylor, 108 N.C. 196, 12 S.E. 1005 (1891); Keeler v. Newbern, 61 N.C. 505 (1868). The acts of a de facto officer are, however, valid as to the public and third persons. Norfleet v. Staton, supra. Thus, \u201cSo far as the public and third persons are concerned, a judge de facto is competent to do whatever may be done by a judge de jure. In consequence, acts done by a judge de facto in the discharge of the duties of his judicial office are as effectual so far as the rights of third persons or the public are concerned as if he were a judge de jure. . . .\u201d In re Wingler, supra, at 563. See cases cited therein. Judge Beach satisfied the requirements of a de facto judge and also the provisions of G.S. 128-6; accordingly, his judicial acts while in office are valid.\nAfter having served as a judge de facto for over two years, and upon the discovery of his legal infirmity, Judge Beach resigned from office on 31 March 1977. His resignation from office created an actual vacancy in that position. See Atkins v. Fortner, 236 N.C. 264, 72 S.E. 2d 594 (1952). Having been defeated in the November 1974 election, plaintiff had no legal right to assume office by virtue of the election. Furthermore, having vacated and surrendered the office to the defendant in 1974 without contesting defendant\u2019s right to it, plaintiff had no rights under G.S. 128-7, or under case law, to reassume office. Cf. Williams v. Somers, 18 N.C. 61 (1834). Hence, upon the resignation of Judge Beach, there was no one legally entitled to hold office by virtue of an election, nor under G.S. 128-7 was there an incumbent with the legal right to continue in office until a successor was elected or appointed. Judge Beach\u2019s resignation, therefore, created a legal as well as an actual vacancy in office under Article IV, Section 19, of the North Carolina Constitution. When such vacancy occurred, it was the duty of the Governor, under this constitutional provision, to appoint someone to fill the vacancy. The Governor performed his duty by the appointment of L. Oliver Noble to the position of District Court Judge for the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District, and Judge Noble rightfully occupies that position at this time.\nHence, the summary judgment for defendants entered by the trial judge is affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "MOORE, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General James Wallace, Jr. for the State, appellee.", "Isenhower and Long by David L. Isenhower and Samuel H. Long, III for plaintiff appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA EX REL. RANDY D. DUNCAN v. BENJAMIN H. BEACH, L. OLIVER NOBLE, JR., THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, THE HONORABLE JAMES B. HUNT, JR., GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA\nNo. 22\n(Filed 17 April 1978)\n1. Judges \u00a7 4; Elections \u00a7 10; Public Officers \u00a7 3\u2014 ineligibility of election winner to serve as judge \u2014 no right to office by losing candidate\nVotes cast for an ineligible candidate who received a majority of the votes in an election for district court judge, though not effective to give him legal entitlement to the office, were nonetheless legally effective to exclude his defeated opponent from entitlement to that office, and neither candidate, therefore, had de jure title to the office of district court judge by virtue of the election.\n2. Elections \u00a7 10; Public Officers \u00a7 3\u2014 ineligibility of majority candidate\u2014 knowledge of ineligibility by voters\nThe ineligibility of a candidate receiving the majority of votes in an election does not elect the candidate receiving a minority of the votes regardless of whether the voting public had knowledge of the majority candidate\u2019s ineligibility.\n3. Public Officers \u00a7 7\u2014 ineligibility to serve as judge \u2014 de facto judge\nA person who received a majority of the votes in an election for district court judge, was sworn in and assumed the duties of that office, but who was ineligible to hold that office because of his age, did not hold the office de jure but was a de facto judge.\n4. Public Officers \u00a7 7\u2014 judge de jure\nA judge de jure exercises the office of judge as a matter of right and must satisfy three requirements: (1) he must possess the legal qualifications for the judicial office in question; (2) he must be lawfully chosen to such office; and (3) he must have qualified himself to perform the duties of such office according to the mode prescribed by law.\n5. Public Officers \u00a7 7\u2014 judge de facto\nA judge de facto is one who occupies a judicial office under some color of right and for a time performs its duties with public acquiescence though having no right in fact.\n6. Public Officers \u00a7 7\u2014 usurper in office\nA usurper in office is one who takes possession of an office and undertakes to act officially without any authority, either actual or apparent, and since he is not an officer at all or for any purpose, his acts are absolutely void and can be impeached at any time in any proceeding.\n7. Public Officers \u00a7 7.1\u2014 acts of de facto officer \u2014 validity of acts\nThe acts of a de facto officer are valid as to the public and third persons.\n8. Judges \u00a7 4; Public Officers \u00a7 3\u2014 ineligibility of election winner to serve as judge \u2014 no right of loser to office \u2014 vacancy\u2014appointment by Governor\nWhere a candidate for district court judge who was ineligible under G.S. 7A-4.20(a) to hold that office because he had reached the age of 70 years before the election received a majority of the votes cast, was sworn in and assumed the duties of the office, and resigned upon the discovery of his ineligibility after having served as a de facto judge for over two years, the incumbent who was defeated in the election had no legal right to assume the office by virtue of the election and did not hold over in office by virtue of G.S. 128-7; therefore, the resignation of the ineligible judge created a vacancy in the office of district court judge which was properly filled by an appointment made by the Governor. Art. IV, \u00a7 19 of the N. C. Constitution.\nOn plaintiff-relator\u2019s petition for discretionary review, prior to determination by the Court of Appeals, of summary judgment for defendants entered by Godwin, J., at the 5 July 1977 Session of WAKE Superior Court.\nThis is an action in the nature of quo warranto to determine conflicting claims to the office of District Court Judge, Twenty-Fifth Judicial District of North Carolina.\nJudge Godwin, after hearing on the motion of plaintiff-relator for summary judgment and cross motion of defendants for summary judgment, concluded, inter alia:\n\u201cThat the appointment by the Defendant Governor Hunt of Defendant L. Oliver Noble, to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Defendant Beach was lawful and proper and constituted a regular appointment under the laws and Constitution of the State.\u201d\nThereupon, Judge Godwin entered summary judgment for defendants dismissing plaintiff\u2019s action. Plaintiff-relator gave notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. We allowed plaintiff\u2019s petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31, prior to determination by the Court of Appeals.\nAttorney General Rufus L. Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General James Wallace, Jr. for the State, appellee.\nIsenhower and Long by David L. Isenhower and Samuel H. Long, III for plaintiff appellant." }, "file_name": "0713-01", "first_page_order": 737, "last_page_order": 745 }