Hooker v. Foster
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Citation | 1 S.W.2d 276 |
| Docket Number | (No. 859-4947.) |
| Parties | HOOKER et al. v. FOSTER et al. |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1928 |
v.
FOSTER et al.
Page 277
Certified Questions from Court of Civil Appeals of Sixth Supreme Judicial District.
Election contest by S. E. Hooker and others against Guy Foster and others. From a judgment dismissing the contest, contestants appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which certified questions to the Commission of Appeals. Questions answered.
T. P. Buffington, of Anderson, for appellants.
Haynes Shannon, of Navasota, for appellees.
SPEER, J.
The Court of Civil Appeals for the Sixth District has certified to the Supreme Court for answer the questions shown in the following certificate:
"In the above cause pending before this court we deem it advisable to certify to your honors the questions hereinafter specifically set forth. We are inclined to interpret article 3070, Revised Statutes, as providing for the ready joinder of defendant contestees in case only there is no county or district attorney of the county. In other words, that the purpose of the enactment was to prevent failure of right of contest through the lack of a defendant contestee and the service of notice in case there is no county or district attorney of the county timely available upon whom to serve notice of the contest during the period of 30 days 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 intended to be separated from county elections.
"(1) This is a contest of an election held in the Shiro independent school district of Grimes county on September 28, 1926, to determine whether or not an additional maintenance tax should be levied in that district. The contestants are resident taxpaying voters of the county and of the school district. The official result of the election was declared September 30, 1926, by the board of trustees of the Shiro independent school district, which was the returning board and which consisted of appellees, all named as contestees in this cause. Notice of the contest was duly and timely served on October 20, 1926, upon the contestees, and the present contest was timely filed in the district court on October 26, 1926. The notice so served was filed as a part of the pleading in the contest. On October 29, 1926, the contestees filed their reply to the grounds of contest, denying each item of the grounds of contest and specially demurring to the contestants' right to contest because notice had not been served on the county attorney of Grimes county. The county attorney was not made a party contestee, and no notice was served on him of the contest. There was a county attorney of Grimes county at the time, and he was available to be served with timely notice of this contest. On February...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. Commissioners Court of Sabine County
...official result of said election' within the meaning of Art. 3070, and was therefore the only necessary contestee. See; Hooker v. Foster, 117 Tex. 237, 1 S.W.2d 276. (4) Due service of the statutory notice of intention to contest and grounds of contest was made upon the County Judge of Sabi......
-
Grizzaffi v. Lee, 17565
...1st Dist., 1973, ref., n.r.e.). See pocket parts and cases cited under Art. 10, General Provisions. In the case of Hooker v. Foster, 117 Tex. 237, 1 S.W.2d 276 (1928) in an opinion adopted by the Texas Supreme Court, it was held that, 'The latter article makes the contestee to depend upon t......
-
Landrum v. Centennial Rural High School Dist. No. 2, 8953.
...§§ 121, 122, and 123, pp. 151-158, and cases there cited. See particularly Bahn v. Savage, Tex.Civ. App., 120 S.W.2d 644; Hooker v. Foster, 117 Tex. 237, 1 S.W.2d 276; Treaccar v. Galveston, Tex.Civ.App., 28 S.W.2d Norton v. Alexander, 28 Tex.Civ.App. 466, 67 S.W. 787; Thurston v. Thomas, T......
-
Bahn v. Savage, 10551.
...they were served at all, since service upon them could not confer jurisdiction of the contest, upon the district court. Hooker v. Foster, 117 Tex. 237, 1 S.W.2d 276. Contestants question the validity of the election of the special judge who heard the contest below, upon the ground that he w......