Hayter v. Baker
| Decision Date | 16 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1511.) |
| Citation | 293 S.W. 331 |
| Parties | HAYTER et al. v. BAKER, Mayor. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Necogdoches County; C. A. Hodges, Judge.
Suit by S. B. Hayter and others against W. I. Baker, Mayor of the City of Nacogdoches, contesting an election. From an order sustaining contestee's plea to the jurisdiction, the contestants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
S. M. Adams and S. W. Blount, both of Nacogdoches, for appellants.
V. E. Middlebrook, of Nacogdoches, for appellee.
This suit was filed in the district court of Nacogdoches county on June 10, 1926, by the appellants S. B. Hayter et al., who allege in their petition that they are resident citizens of the city of Nacogdoches, Tex., and qualified voters in that city, against W. I. Baker, as mayor of the city of Nacogdoches, for the purpose of contesting the declared result of an election held in the city of Nacogdoches on May 6, 1926, with a view to determining, by the vote of the citizens of the city of Nacogdoches, whether or not the city of Nacogdoches should sell its electric power plant.
Appellants' petition alleged that their notice of contest of this election and their statement of the grounds for the contest were duly and seasonably served upon W. I. Baker, the contestee, as the mayor of the city of Nacogdoches, and that thereafter their petition, showing the grounds of contest, was duly and seasonably filed in the district court of Nacogdoches county. A number of grounds for the contest are alleged in the petition, but, in view of the disposition that was made of the case below and the disposition we shall make of it here, it is unnecessary to state any of the grounds of contest alleged by appellants.
In due time after appellants' petition was filed, citation was regularly issued to W. I. Baker, as the mayor of the city of Nacogdoches, requiring him to make answer to the petition. Thereafter, and in due time, there was filed in the district court of Nacogdoches county what purports to be the answer of W. I. Baker, as mayor of the city of Nacogdoches, and this answer is signed by certain attorneys, who purport to act in filing the answer as attorneys for the contestee, Baker, in his capacity as mayor of the city of Nacogdoches. The answer contained a plea to the jurisdiction of the district court, a general demurrer, many special exceptions, a general denial, and other defensive matters not necessary to mention here.
When the case was reached for trial, attorneys for the contestee presented and urged their plea to the jurisdiction of the trial court, which was based on the ground that appellants had not served the county attorney of Nacogdoches county with notice of their contest, and had not delivered to him a statement of the grounds upon which the contest would be made, but, on the contrary, that appellants were undertaking to maintain this contest by showing in their petition that they had served their notice of contest on W. I. Baker, as the mayor of the city of Nacogdoches, and had delivered to him their statement of the grounds of their contest; all of which, as contended by counsel for contestee, was insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the district court of Nacogdoches county to entertain this suit. After argument of counsel upon the plea to the jurisdiction, the trial court sustained the plea and ordered this suit dismissed, and it is from that order that this appeal is prosecuted.
It is the contention of counsel for contestee that the contestants, in order to maintain this suit, were required to show in their petition that they had served a notice of their contest and a statement of their grounds of contest upon the county attorney of Nacogdoches county within the time prescribed by statute, and that, since appellants' petition showed upon its face that there was no notice of contest served upon the county attorney or grounds of contest delivered to him, the court had no authority to entertain this suit. In support of this contention, counsel for contestee invoke article 3070, Revised Civil Statutes 1925. It is our opinion that counsel for contestee are wrong in this contention. When article 3070 is construed in connection with article 3069, next preceding it, it is clear to us that the mayor of the city of Nacogdoches was the proper one to be served with the notice of contest and statement of the grounds of the contest in this case, and that he was properly made the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Lewie
...Articles 3069 and 3070, which provide that in certain election contests the mayor of the city shall be made the contestee. Hayter v. Baker, Tex.Civ.App., 293 S.W. 331. Appellee argues that the statutes last referred to do not govern the case, on the ground that the jurisdiction of the distr......
-
Jordan v. Overstreet
...in an election contest brought by citizens of a school district attacking a bond election held therein. And this court in Hayter v. Baker, 293 S.W. 331, held he was not a proper party contestee in a suit attacking a city election. But the present is not a suit involving a single unit of the......
-
Hooker v. Foster
...from the declared election. Articles 3042, 3043, Rev. Statutes. The construction of the article given in the case of Hayter v. Baker, Mayor (Tex. Civ. App.) 293 S. W. 331, may be in conflict with this view unless contested elections solely upon matters peculiar to towns and cities were inte......