Ashford v. Goodwin
| Citation | 131 S.W. 535 |
| Parties | ASHFORD v. GOODWIN, Judge. |
| Decision Date | 12 October 1910 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
Snodgrass & Dibrell and Chas. Rogan, for relator. Jno. W. Goodwin, in pro. per.
Relator made application to this court for a mandamus directed to the Honorable John W. Goodwin, judge of the district court of Coleman county, commanding him to proceed to hear and determine an application heretofore presented to him by relator for a writ of mandamus to be directed to the county clerk of Coleman county, requiring the said county clerk to place the name of the said Ashford upon the official ballot as the nominee of the Democratic party for public weigher in a certain "combined" justices' precinct in the said county.
The relator sets up in detail the facts; that there was a primary election for the Democratic party of Texas and Coleman county, held on the 23d day of July, 1910; that the relator, Carey Bradford, and others, were candidates for nomination by the said party at the said primary election for public weigher for certain combined justice precincts in that county. It is alleged that at said primary election the said relator received a plurality of all the votes cast in said combined precincts by the Democratic party for the office of public weigher aforesaid, but that the executive committee of the Democratic party for the said county fraudulently and wrongfully declared the said Carey Bradford to be the nominee of the said party for that office and certified his name to the county clerk of the said county as provided by law. In compliance with the terms of the law, relator filed his protest with the county clerk, claiming that his name should be placed upon the ticket as the nominee of the said party, which the clerk refused to do, and thereafter the said Ashford presented to the Honorable John W. Goodwin, district judge as aforesaid, a petition in which he set up the facts with regard to his candidacy before the primary election and that he had received a plurality of all the votes cast, charging fraud and illegality in the declaration by the executive committee of the result in favor of the said Carey Bradford. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this case to go more into detail of the allegations of the petition. The petitioner prayed for a hearing before the judge in vacation, who set the case down for a hearing in vacation, and the parties were notified and appeared before him. Further statement as to the conduct of the trial is unnecessary. The judge, upon hearing the argument of counsel, refused to hear the contest or grant the said writ of mandamus in vacation as requested by the relator, and Ashford presented his application to this court for the writ of mandamus to the Honorable John W. Goodwin, directing him to proceed to hear and determine the contest in vacation.
Respondent has filed in this court his answer, in which he contends that the petition shows no ground for issuing a mandamus: (1) Because the law does not authorize the election of a public weigher for such part of a county as is described in the petition; (2) because the law does not authorize the contest of election for such subdivision of a county; (3) that the contest of election is not judicial but political in character and cannot be conferred upon a judge or court; and (4) that there is no adequate procedure prescribed by law for the trial of such contest.
Prior to the adoption in 1891 of the amendment to article 5 of the Constitution of this state, the Legislature could not confer upon the district courts authority to try contested elections. To remedy that defect, section 8 of the amendment to article 5 was adopted, in which occurs this language: "The district court shall have original jurisdiction * * * of contested elections." The question now before this court is: Had the Legislature the power under this provision of the Constitution to enact the following provision of the statute of 1909: "In state, district, county, precinct or municipal offices, the certificate of nomination issued by the president or chairman of the nominating convention or chairman of the county executive committee, shall be subject to review upon allegations of fraud or illegality by the district court of the county in which the contestee resides, or the judge of said court in vacation; provided, that such allegations are filed in said court within ten days after the issuance of said certificate and when said allegations are so filed or the appeal from the decision of the executive committee is perfected, the judge of the district court shall set same down for hearing either in term time or vacation at the earliest practical time, and a copy of said grounds of contest together with the notice of the date set for said hearing shall be prepared and issued by the clerk of the district court and be served upon the contestee five days before the hearing before said court or judge, and the parties to said contest shall have the right to summon witnesses; and the court or judge may, if in his opinion the ends of justice require it, unlock and unseal the ballot boxes used in the precinct where fraud or illegality is charged to have been used and examine their contents, after which they shall be sealed and delivered to the county clerk; and said court or judge shall determine said contest, and the decision of said court or judge shall be final as to all district, county, precinct or municipal offices, and a certified copy of the judgment of said court or judge shall be transmitted by the clerk thereof to the officers charged with the duty of providing the official ballot, and the name of the candidate in whose favor said judgment shall be rendered shall be printed in the official ballot for the general election."
When the Legislature passed that act, they must, in the discharge of their duty, have determined that the power to so enact was conferred upon that body by the language we have quoted above from section 8 of article 5 of the Constitution as amended. The Legislature having determined that the power was granted to that body to pass the law, this court must sustain it unless its invalidity be apparent beyond a reasonable doubt. The language used in the Constitution, "contested elections," is broad enough to justify the construction placed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Great Southern Life Ins. Co. v. City of Austin
...of must be held valid, unless its enactment was expressly or by necessary implication prohibited by the Constitution. Ashford v. Goodwin, 103 Tex. 491, 495, 131 S. W. 535, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 699; State v. McAlister, 88 Tex. 284, 287, 31 S. W. 187, 28 L. R. A. 523; Brown v. Galveston, 97 Tex. ......
-
Trapp v. Shell Oil Co.
...ours.) This Court, in testing the constitutionality of a statute, has variably stated the rule as follows: Ashford v. Goodwin, 103 Tex. 491, 131 S.W. 535, 537, Ann.Cas.1913A, 699: "This court must sustain it unless its invalidity be apparent beyond a reasonable State v. Hogg, 123 Tex. 568, ......
-
Koy v. Schneider
...W. 619; Railroad Commission v. Railway, 90 Tex. 340, 38 S. W. 750; Brown v. City of Galveston, 97 Tex. 1, 75 S. W. 488; Ashford v. Goodwin, 103 Tex. 491, 131 S. W. 535, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 699; Lewis' Sutherland on Stat. Const. § "Each legislator is required to take the official oath prescribe......
-
Koy v. Schneider
...v. Galveston, 97 Tex. 12, 75 S. W. 493. Principal reliance is placed, in attacking the statute, on the decisions in Ashford v. Goodwin, 103 Tex. 491, 131 S. W. 535, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 699, Anderson v. Ashe, 62 Tex. Civ. App. 262, 130 S. W. 1044, and Lane v. McLemore (Civ. App.) 169 S. W. 1073......