| Wis. | Jan 16, 1917
It was held in State ex rel. Schuet v. Murray, 28 Wis. 96" court="Wis." date_filed="1871-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-ex-rel-schuet-v-murray-6600682?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6600682">28 Wis. 96, that it was not necessary to the validity of an election that the person voted for should be then eligible to hold the office if the electors in good faith believed he was and voted for him with that understanding. This rule was reaffirmed in State v. Trumpf, 50 Wis. 103" court="Wis." date_filed="1880-09-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-trumpf-6603224?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6603224">50 Wis. 103, 5 N. W. 876, 6 N. W. 512. The case of State ex rel. Bancroft v. Frear, 144 Wis. 79, 128 N. W. 1068, does not hold the contrary. In that case the person voted for was, to the knowledge of the voters, dead, hence no valid vote could be cast for him. In the present case it is admitted that Leisch was believed by the
The contention that the provision in sec. 811, Stats. 1915, that the treasurer “shall hold until his successor is elected and qualified,” excludes one who has been appointed and has qualified from lawfully holding the office must be held to be without force, because if sound it would render those provisions of the statute providing for an appointment meaningless. The words quoted must be held to include an appointee as well as one elected in order to give full force and effect to all the statutory provisions relating to the incumbency of the office.
Some argument is made that the defendant should now be allowed to answer if the order is affirmed, so that he may plead such defenses to the merits as he may have. No application to that effect was made to the trial court and we deem the record barren of any facts calling for further litigation of the matter.
By the G'ourt. — Order and'judgment affirmed.