Civil Service Commission of City of Lufkin v. Crager
| Decision Date | 15 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 6728,6728 |
| Citation | 384 S.W.2d 381 |
| Parties | The CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF the CITY OF LUFKIN, Appellant, v. Carroll CRAGER, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
William Drew Perkins, Lufkin, for appellant.
Billy Lee Thompson, Lufkin, for appellee.
Carroll Crager sued the Civil Service Commission of the City of Lufkin seeking reinstatement as a member of that City's police force. Both plaintiff and defendant filed motions for summary judgment. The parties will be designated as they were in the trial court. The District Court of Angelina County granted plaintiff's and denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The City of Lufkin adopted Art. 1269m, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., the Civil Service Act for Firemen and Policemen. On September 25, 1963, plaintiff was discharged from the police department of the City of Lufkin. On that day at approximately 8:20 a. m., Aycock, Chief of Police of the City of Lufkin, delivered the following letter to Mr. Lynn Durham, the Director of the Civil Service for the City of Lufkin, notifying Mr. Durham of the dismissal of plaintiff from the police force:
'Dear Mr. Durham:
'Sergeant Crager has been supplied with a copy of this directive and advised of his rights of appeal under civil service law.
'Yours truly,
'Henry W. Aycock
'Chief of Police'
The original of this letter not being available, defendant's attorney agreed with plaintiff's attorney that such carbon copy was a true and correct copy of the original. Lynn Durham said in his affidavit attached to defendant's motion for summary judgment:
'* * * On September 25, 1963, at approximately 8:20 o'clock A.M., Henry W. Aycock, Chief of Police of the City of Lufkin, Texas, delivered to me a letter and, at the same time, verbally informed me that Sergeant Carroll Crager had been dismissed as a member of the Police Department of the City of Lufkin, Texas, and that the letter contained his reasons for dismissing him. I took the letter and stamped it with a rubber stamp, with which all material received in the Civil Service office are stamped. At that time I had not filed it and, while stamping it, I gave it a cursory reading and questions arose in my mind as to whether or not it was adequate for the purposes for which it was intended. I decided not to file it and, instead, contacted Chief Aycock who came to my office immediately. We discussed it a few minutes. He took the letter from me and left.
'On September 25, at 8:45 M.M. Chief Aycock delivered to me another letter, which I read, and which I, as Civil Service Director of the City of Lufkin, Texas, filed in the proper file in my office in the city Hall of the City of Lufkin, Texas. A true and correct copy of such letter is attached to this affidavit, marked 'Exhibit A', and made a part hereof for any and all purposes. The original copy of that letter is presently in my office in the Civil Service file designated as 'Carroll Crager'.
'In compliance with such letter, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked 'Exhibit A', Carroll Crager's compensation as a member of the Police Department of the City of Lufkin, Texas, ceased as of 6:00 o'clock A.M., September 25, 1963.'
This second letter delivered to Mr. Durham by Aycock on the same day at 8:45 a. m. is as follows:
'Dear Mr. Durham:
'Be advised that Sergeant Carroll Crager is dismissed from the service effective this date.
'Sergeant Crager is dismissed under authority of Section 119 of the Personnel Rules of the City of Lufkin, Texas as applies to Firemen and Policemen, and under Rules and Regulations of the Police Department as outlined in the police Duty Manuel.
'Details are more fully outlined in this officer's personnel file.
'Sergeant Crager has been supplied with a copy of this directive and advised that he has ten days (10) days, to appeal under civil Service Law.
'Yours truly,
'Henry W. Aycock
'Chief of Police'
The letters were stamped by the Civil Service Director with the same stamp:
'CITY OF LUFKIN
Received in office of
CIVIL SERVICE DIRECTOR
at ___ M.
___ 19 __
By ________'
and then he filled in the time and date as each letter was received and initialed his entries. The other instruments appellant admits were filed by the Director were by him stamped with the same stamp. The word 'filed' does not appear on any exhibit filed by the Director. We consider the first letter was filed. This situation is analongous to that governing an application for filing an instrument for record, such as a deed (and should be so treated), the instrument being deemed filed when delivered for that purpose where it is supposed to be filed, in the absence of some statute providing that fees be paid or some other thing done or performed before filing. Sun Lumber Co. v. Huttig Sash & Door Co., Tex.Civ.App., 36 S.W.2d 561. There is no provision in the Civil Service Act for a fee to be paid or other thing done by the Chief of Police before the Director of Civil Service shall file such a written statement. To repeat, the first letter was filed. See Jones v. MacCordquodale, Cordquodale, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W. 59, and authorities cited on p. 61.
Plaintiff duly filed his objection to his dismissal from the Lufkin Police Department by said Henry W. Aycock, Chief of Police, requesting the Civil Service Commission of the City of Lufkin to grant him a hearing upon such matter. The Civil Service Commission of the City of Lukin heard such case. An order and decision sustaining the dismissal of the said plaintiff was entered by it. Plaintiff objected and excepted thereto.
Defendant's Point of Error 1 is that the trial court erred in failing to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment because there was a full compliance with the requirements of Art. 1269m, V.A.C.S., in discharging plaintiff. In the exercise of his power to suspend indefinitely any officer under his supervision, Sec. 16 of such Article requires the Chief of Police to file a written statement with the Commission giving the reasons for such suspension....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cruz v. City of San Antonio
...in cases appealed to the district court pursuant to Art. 1269m have been upheld. See Civil Service Commission of City of Lufkin v. Crager, 384 S.W.2d 381 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Lombardino v. Firemen's & Policemen's Civil Service Commission, 310 S.W.2d 651 (Tex.Civ......
-
American Exp. Co. v. Monfort Food Distributing Co.
...the case, it is filed. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Shrader, 89 Tex. 35, 33 S.W. 112, 113 (1895); Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Crager, 384 S.W.2d 381, 383 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.). American Express thus presented some evidence that it properly filed an answer, and that the error......
-
Valentino v. City of Houston
...§ 16, supra, addressing amendments to the original written statement and charges. Civil Service Commission of City of Lufkin v. Crager, 384 S.W.2d 381, 384 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Also, see Bichsel v. Carver, 159 Tex. 393, 321 S.W.2d 284 As previously mentioned, th......
-
Herron v. City of Abilene
...508 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston (1st Dist.) 1974, writ ref. n.r.e.), and Civil Service Commission of City of Lufkin v. Crager, 384 S.W.2d 381 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1964, writ ref. n.r.e.), there was evidence of noncompliance with Article The order of the administrative body is presu......