Handy v. Holman
| Decision Date | 16 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 12880,12880 |
| Citation | 281 S.W.2d 356 |
| Parties | E. W. HANDY et al., Appellants, v. Burke HOLMAN, County Attorney, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Paul A. Taylor and Pat N. Fahey, Houston, for appellants.
Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Searls and Victor W. Bouldin, Houston, for appellees.
This was an election contest brought to invalidate the declared results of a bond election held in Tom Ball Independent School District, Harris County, on June 26, 1954. The Court, trying the case without a jury, held the declared results of the election valid, and rendered judgment that contestants 'take nothing.' The contestants, hereafter called appellants, predicate this appeal upon the following four points: That the trial court erred (1) in holding as qualified to vote forty-odd persons who had not duly rendered their property for taxes as required by the Constitution and laws of the State, and (2) in holding that persons who had merely rendered $100 in value of 'Personal Property' without other description thereof in May and June before the election on June 26, 1954, had duly rendered property for taxes, and (3) in not requiring witnesses who vited in said election to testify as to how they voted, and (4) in rendering judgment that appellants 'take nothing.' We overrule the points.
It is the position of appellants that the rendition by appellees of 'personal property' of the value of $100, giving no more definite description was not a due rendition of property for taxes, and did not qualify the person making such rendition to vote in a bond election. It is provided in Art. VI, § 3a of our State Constitution, Veronon's Ann.St. so far as here material, 'When an election is held by * * * any defined district now or hereafter to be described and defined within the State and which may or may nor include towns * * * for the purpose of issuing bonds * * * only qualified electors who own taxable property in the State, county * * * district * * * where such election is held, and who have duly rendered the same for taxation, shall be qualified to vote and all electors shall vote in the election precinct of their residence.' Art. 5.03 of the Election Code of 1951, V. A.T.S., contains similar provisions. In passing, it might be stated that the Board of Equalization raised each such rendition from $100 to $1,500.
So far as the provisions of aforesaid Art. VI, § 3a, and of aforesaid Art. 5.03, requiring qualified electors who own taxable property to have duly rendered same for taxation as a qualification to vote in a bond election, the mere rendition of property for taxation, as so provided for, is all that is required. We assume that, except for other statutes which appellants consider as fastening onto and expanding the restrictions of the aforesaid Section of the Constitution and Article of the Election Code, appellants would not urge that the rendition of 'personal property' for taxation was insufficient to qualify the owner to participate in the bond election. Article 7161, V. A.T.S., for instance, provides that each person required by law to list property shall make and sign a verified statement of all property which he is required to list for taxation. Art. 7162 provides what such statement shall set forth. Said statement provides for 42 different items, none of which is so general as 'personal property', and the concluding item provided for is
We believe upon principle that the right to exercise the franchise stands in a peculiar category, and that where some restriction is placed thereon the doctrine of in pari materia should not be applied to enlarge such restrictions, and that where the qualified voter does what is specifically required of him in order to qualify to vote, that he should not be legalistically 'parsed' out of his right to exercise his franchise. The only other instance in which the point has been raised in this State, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Barnes
...subjects than Articles 5453 and 5455, V.A.C.S. A mechanic's lien is a creature of the Constitution and the statutes. Handy v. Holman et al., 281 S.W.2d 356 (Tex.Civ.App., Galveston 1955, no writ); Culver v. Miears, 220 S.W.2d 200 (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland 1949, writ ref'd); Real Estate-Land T......
-
Helm v. State Election Bd., 53014
...Dist. No. 10, N.D., 78 N.W.2d 68 (1956); McRobbie v. Registrars of Voters of Ipswich, 322 Mass. 530, 78 N.E.2d 498; Handy v. Holman, Tex.Civ.App., 281 S.W.2d 356; Ex parte Henry, 132 Tex. 575, 126 S.W.2d 1, followed in Ex parte O'Brien, 132 Tex. 579, 126 S.W.2d 3; Ex parte McAfee, 132 Tex. ......
-
Montgomery Independent School District v. Martin
...to those who own real property. Texas Public Utilities Corporation v. Holland, 123 S.W.2d 1028 (Tex.Civ.App.1939, writ dis.). In Handy v. Holman, 281 S.W.2d 356 (Tex.Civ.App.1955, no writ), the right to vote of forty resident citizens was challenged because immediately before participating ......
-
Christy v. Oliphint
...that the courts have universally held that each elector is privileged to refuse to disclose how he cast his ballot. See Handy v. Holman, Tex.Civ.App., 281 S.W.2d 356, and cases there However, we do not see how this privilege can inure to the benefit of an elector who is shown to have illega......