Baker v. Webster, 5556.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
| Citation | 123 S.W.2d 690 |
| Docket Number | No. 5556.,5556. |
| Parties | BAKER et al. v. WEBSTER et al. |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1938 |
v.
WEBSTER et al.
Appeal from District Court, Bowie County; R. H. Harvey, Judge.
Election contest by W. H. Webster and others against L. C. Baker and others.
Page 691
From a judgment sustaining the contest, contestees appeal.
Affirmed.
O. B. Pirkey, of New Boston, for appellants.
Rodgers & Rodgers, of Texarkana, for appellees.
WILLIAMS, Justice.
This appeal involves the contest of an election which was held to determine if the Rock Creek Common School District and the New Boston Independent School District would be consolidated under the provisions of Article 2806, R.C.S.1925. The returns as canvassed by the Commissioners' Court disclosed fifty-seven votes for and fifty-six votes against consolidation were cast in the Rock Creek School District. The written statement of the grounds for contest is lengthy and is based upon ten specific grounds being directed to that part of the election held in the Rock Creek Common School District. On hearing, the trial court found "That such number of legal voters were by the officers or managers of the election denied the right to vote at said election, as had they voted or been permitted to vote, would have materially changed the result as to render such election void," and directed the proper officials to order and hold another election. W. H. Webster and others not necessary to mention here are named as contestants. Otto H. Atchley, County Judge of Bowie County, the respective members of the Commissioners' Court of said county, W. N. Harkness, County Attorney, and the respective members of the Board of School Trustees of the New Boston Independent School District, including L. C. Baker, its President, were named as contestees in the notice of intent to contest and in the statement of grounds for contest. It is unnecessary to discuss the evidence as contestees, appellants herein, concede "the judgment would find support in the evidence and the judgment should not be reversed for that ground." In their answer filed April 14, 1938, contestees urged a plea in abatement, general demurrer and denial, and further answering, challenged certain votes cast against consolidation. We presume all pleas were overruled as the cause proceeded to trial.
Appellants' first three propositions deal with a plea in abatement or general demurrer, and are embraced in the following proposition: "The court had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. Commissioners Court of Sabine County, 4609
...general exception to appellants' pleadings is sustained.' A similar decision seems to have been made in Baker v. Webster, Tex.Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 690, (6) Now, the particular grounds of defendants' amended plea in abatement which, according to the trial court's 2nd conclusion of law, were ......
-
Jordan v. Overstreet, 6489
...contestee. This view comports with the holdings in Rister v. Plowman, Tex.Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 264, and Baker v. Webster, Tex.Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 690. The trial court's ruling is Appellants' first point asserts that the trial court should have ruled that the election had failed to carry for......
-
Doherty v. King, 5663.
...and they constitute a majority of the trustees. It has likewise been held in the case of Baker et al. v. Webster et al., Tex.Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 690, that in such contests the statutory requirements have been met when either the county attorney or the county judge is made a contestee and i......