Dewees v. Stevens
Decision Date | 16 October 1912 |
Citation | 150 S.W. 589 |
Parties | DEWEES v. STEVENS et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
O. A. McCracken and C. A. Cone, both of Floresville, for relator. J. E. Canfield and L. B. Wiseman, both of Floresville, for respondents Kott & Stevens.
On August 10, 1912, Hugo Kott filed in the district court of Wilson county his petition against J. E. Dewees, chairman of the Democratic executive committee of Wilson county and others, praying for a writ of mandamus to compel the said Dewees, as such chairman, to certify to the county clerk of Wilson county the name of Kott as the regular Democratic nominee for the office of county commissioner of precinct No. 3 of Wilson county. The petition, in substance, alleged that Kott, with two others, was a candidate before the Democratic primary held on July 27, 1912, for the Democratic nomination for county commissioner of precinct No. 3 of Wilson county, and that he had received a plurality of all the votes cast for the candidates for said office, and was therefore entitled to have his name certified to the county clerk as the nominee for such office, in compliance with the primary election laws of this state. The cause was set down for hearing in vacation, and after such hearing, on August 20, 1912, an order was entered by the district judge requiring J. E. Dewees, as chairman of the Democratic executive committee of Wilson county, to certify to the county clerk of said county the vote received by Hugo Kott in the primary election showing his nomination for such office.
The cause was submitted to the trial judge upon the pleadings and the following facts, both as agreed upon and as shown by the certificate of the county chairman, to wit:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Koslow v. Taylor
-
Yett v. Cook
...or not effective. The same intimation is clearly made in the case of Hammond v. Ashe, 103 Tex. 503, 131 S. W. 539, and Dewees v. Stevens, 105 Tex. 356, 360, 150 S. W. 589. We might cite other Texas cases showing that this court has consistently followed the trend of judicial decisions on th......
-
Grant v. Ammerman
...Canvassing the votes of an election is a ministerial function. Ferguson v. Huggins, 122 Tex. 95, 52 S.W.2d 904 (1932); Dewees v. Stevens, 105 Tex. 356, 150 S.W. 589 (1912); Dean v. State ex rel. Bailey, 88 Tex. 290, 30 S.W. 1047, 31 S.W. 185 (1895); Shelor v. Commissioners Court of Harris C......
-
Leslie v. Griffin
...administration of the government. When regulated by statute, such matters cease to be political and become judicial. Dewees v. Stevens, 105 Tex. 356, 150 S. W. 589; Staples v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 244 S. W. Appellants' next contention is that the trial court was without jurisdiction to gr......