{
  "id": 11275462,
  "name": "THE STATE on the relation of MAYER HAHN v. DANIEL STINSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Hahn v. Stinson",
  "decision_date": "1887-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "591",
  "last_page": "592",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 N.C. 591"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 3259,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3082648833966768
    },
    "sha256": "ec03c676e763e3a9a869c0b97794ff2db4102297eb79ba6fcaf679f9dc705946",
    "simhash": "1:946a173b6617e2ce",
    "word_count": 569
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:51:55.485321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE on the relation of MAYER HAHN v. DANIEL STINSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MerrimoN, J.\nThe third ground of demurrer assigned is that it is not alleged in the complaint that the relator received a majority of the \u201clegal votes\u201d cast at the election, the result of which is in question.\nThe law does not allow any but such votes to be cast; and when the proper officers receive a vote in the way prescribed by law the presumption is that it is legal, and it must be so regarded and treated until the contrary shall be shown by some person who shall, in a proper action or proceeding for the purpose, allege its illegality. The relator alleges expressly, among other material things, that he received a majority of over two hundred of the votes cast in the county named, at the election. This is sufficient. The allegation that he received such majority implies a majority of the \u201c legal votes,\u201d because, nothing to the contrary appearing, the votes cast were legal, and it is not necessary to do more than allege the vote cast according to its prima facie legal effect. On the trial, if an issue of fact shall be raised, it will be sufficient for the relator to show that he received a majority of the votes cast, and the burden will then be on the defendant to show that such votes, or any number of them, were for any cause illegal.\nThe allegation is appropriate to raise a proper issue, if the defendant shall see fit to raise it. It is always sufficient in pleading to allege matters and things according to their legal quality and effect, unless there shall be special reason for superadding something otherwise.\nThe law, as settled in Gatling v. Boone, decided at the present term, is applicable to and must be conclusive of this case adversely to the appellant. There is no error.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MerrimoN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. H. R. Bryan and M. D\u2019 W. Stevenson, for the plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. W. W. Clark and C. M. Busbee, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE on the relation of MAYER HAHN v. DANIEL STINSON.\nElection \u2014 Evidence\u2014Burden of Proof \u2014 Pleading.\n1. The presumption is that all votes received by the proper officers at an election are legal, and the burden is on him who alleges the contrary to prove it.\n2. Where the complaint alleged that the relator was duly elected by a majority over the defendant, a demurrer, for that the complaint did not allege that he received a-majority of the \u201c legal votes cast,\u201d is bad.\n3. The other questions presented in the record are governed by the rulings of Gatling v. Boone, ante, 573.\nCivil action, tried before Shipp, Judge, at February Term, 1887, of Craven Superior Court, upon complaint and demurrer.\nThe relator alleged that he had been elected Sheriff of Craven county, over the defendant, \u201cby a majority of three hundred and twenty votes, and by a large majority over other persons voted for,\u201d at the election held in November, 1886, but that the Board of County Canvassers had unlawfully rejected certain returns and declared the defendant -elected,'and that the latter had been inducted into and was performing the duties and receiving the emoluments of the office.\nThe defendant demurred, assigning among other grounds: \u201c Third. In that the complaint does not allege that the relator received a majority of the legal votes cast at said election.\u201d\nThe Court overruled the demurrer and the defendant appealed.\nMessrs. H. R. Bryan and M. D\u2019 W. Stevenson, for the plaintiff.\nMessrs. W. W. Clark and C. M. Busbee, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0591-01",
  "first_page_order": 623,
  "last_page_order": 624
}