82 appellants was being challenged, filed resistance to the motion. We quote the said resistance as follows: CO-RESPONDENTS BRUMSKINE & KARNWEA'S RESISTANCE Co-respondents in the above entitled proceedings deny the legal and factual sufficiency of the motion to dismiss appeal for the following reasons to wit: 1. Because Section 6.7 of the Elections Law provides that "Within seven (7) days after the Commission's determination of a contest, any contestant appealing from the determination shall file his bill of exceptions to the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (emphasis supplied) ..." Co-Respondents submit that the law does not say every contestant at the level of the Commission; it says any contestant who decides to appeal. 2. Also because Section 6.8 of the Elections Law provides that, "The contestant shall enter into a recognizance for payment of costs incurred on the appeal (emphasis supplied) ..." Co-respondents submit that it does not require an astute jurist to realize from the interplay of Sections 6.7 and 6.8 of the Elections Law that in order for a person to be required to enter into a recognizance, such person must be an appellant before this Court—a party to the Bill of Exceptions. 3. And also because it is the bill of exceptions that gives the Honorable Supreme jurisdiction over a contestant. Stated differently, if a contestant is not a party to the bill of exceptions—does not to file a bill of exceptions—the Supreme Court may not exercise jurisdiction over such person. 4. And also because the caption of the bill of exceptions evidences that the 1st appellants are only "Charles Walker Brumskine and Harrison S. Karnwea, presidential and vice presidential candidates." Copy of the first page of the bill of exceptions, as filed with the Clerk of this Honorable Court, and served upon the Commission, is hereto attached, as Co-Respondents Exhibit "A." 5. And also because the entire motion, counts 1 thru 9, is without any legal basis, and should, therefore, be denied and dismissed. 6. And also because as to the entire motion, co-respondents deny all and singular the allegations contained in the motion, which have not been made a subject of special traverse herein. WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Co-Respondents pray that the Motion be denied and dismissed, denying Movant the relief sought; and, that Your Honors will grant unto the CoRespondents such other and further reliefs, as are provided in law and equity, with cost against the Movant. Respectfully submitted The above named co-respondents. Dated this 1st day of December, A.D. 2017.” The foregoing constitutes the background to the appeal before the Supreme Court; and from the bills of exceptions filed by the parties appellants and the briefs