Department of Public Safety v. Austin
| Decision Date | 28 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. A-8648,A-8648 |
| Citation | 354 S.W.2d 376,163 Tex. 280 |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY of the State of Texas, Petitioner, v. Virgil Cline AUSTIN, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Alton R. Griffin, County Atty., E. M. Fulton, Jr., Asst. County Atty., Lubbock, Will Wilson, Atty. Gen., Leon F. Pesek and Tom I. McFarling, Asst. Attys. Gen., for petitioner.
Treadaway & Blumrosen, Lubbock, for respondent.
On December 12, 1959, Austin's chauffeur's license was suspended for a period of six months pursuant to Article 6687b, § 22, Subsection (b)(4). On May 21st Austin was convicted in the Justice of the Peace Court for speeding. Therefore, he committed not only the offense of 'speeding', but also the offense of 'driving while license suspended', as well. On August 8, 1960, the Department, after an administrative hearing as provided under § 22(a), Article 6687b, Vernon's Civil Statutes, entered its order again suspending Austin's license for a period of six months. On appeal the County Court at Law held there was insufficient evidence to support the Department's order of suspension. On February 24, 1961, the Department renewed the operator's license. Thereafter the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal of the Department of Public Safety on the ground that the case had become moot. 348 S.W.2d 854.
In that respect we are of the opinion that the Court of Civil Appeals erred. The Court based its decision on our holding in Boston v. Garrison, 152 Tex. 253, 256 S.W.2d 67. In that case the license had expired and an application for renewal had been refused. Therein lies th distinction. In this case the Department taking note of the judgment of the County Court at Law and pending appeal therefrom, had issued a renewal license to Austin upon his application and thus followed the rule announced in Texas Department of Public Safety v. Azar, 1954, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W.2d 911, error refused n.r.e., namely that the only restriction that may be placed on the renewal of a license, according to the statute, is that the department must renew the license without an examination unless it has reason to believe that licensee is no longer qualified. Under the provisions of § 18, Article 6687b, as construed in Azar, the Department had no alternative but to renew Austin's license.
When Austin appealed from the order of the Department suspending his license the suspension of the license was itself suspended until a final judgment was rendered. Article 6687b, § 22(c).
The only reasonable construction of Article 6687b, § 18, is that the original license can be extended from time to time by proper application for a renewal, but where there is no timely renewal then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
House of Tobacco, Inc. v. Calvert
...in the real estate business, something more than a mere abstract question of law is presented.' See also Department of Public Safety v. Austin, 163 Tex. 280, 354 S.W.2d 376, which distinguishes the Boston case from a situation such as is presented Here, there is prejudice to the petitioner ......
- Estate of Irvin, No. 2-06-234-CV (Tex. App. 5/17/2007)
-
Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Preble
...on Bryant v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 544, 294 S.W.2d 819; Boston v. Garrison, 152 Tex. 253, 256 S.W.2d 67, and, Department of Public Safety v. Austin, 163 Tex. 280, 354 S.W.2d 376. Bryant is distinguishable on the ground that the evidence failed to show there had ever been a suspension; a lice......
-
Texas State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Blankfield
...been provided for in the Board's order, and that the questions involved are not moot. Also see and compare, Department of Public Safety v. Austin, 163 Tex. 280, 354 S.W.2d 376; Texas Real Estate Commission v. Hayter, 338 S.W.2d 771 (Tex.Civ.App.), no writ; Texas State Board of Dental Examin......