# Partridge v. Devoto

> California Supreme Court · October 27, 1905 · 148 Cal. 167

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3306241

## Case

- **Full name:** JOHN S. PARTRIDGE, Petitioner, v. JAMES A. DEVOTO Et Al., Board of Election Commissioners of the City and County of San Francisco, Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 27, 1905
- **Citations:** 148 Cal. 167; 82 P. 775; 1905 Cal. LEXIS 654
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum by Beatty
- **Judges:** Beatty, Shaw
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3306241

## Opinion text

BEATTY, C. J.
I concur in the judgment for the same reasons that induced my dissent from the judgment in the case of
Craig
v. Brown, 114 Cal. 481 , [ 46 Pac. 870 ]. The organizers of a new party can always find a party designation which is wholly distinct from the name of an existing party. The name “Republican” or “Democratic,” though qualified by an epithet, not only may, but inevitably must, deceive some of that class of voters whose protection is the avowed policy of the law, and when every legitimate purpose of the organizers of a new political party can be accomplished by the adoption of a name entirely distinct and which can deceive no one, they should be required, and under a proper construction of the law they are required, to select such a name.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3306241. Public record. Not legal advice.