Isbell v. Brown
| Decision Date | 03 July 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 11628.,11628. |
| Citation | 196 S.W.2d 691 |
| Parties | ISBELL, Secretary of State, v. BROWN. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Fifty-Seventh District Court, Bexar County; C. K. Quin, Judge.
Suit by E. E. Brown against Claude Isbell, Secretary of State, to set aside an order revoking plaintiff's real estate dealer's license. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.
Reversed and rendered.
See also 195 S.W.2d 939.
Grover Sellers, Wm. J. R. King, and Geo. W. Barcus, all of Austin, for appellant.
G. Woodson Morris, of San Antonio, for appellee
This appeal involves the question of burden of proof upon an appeal to the district court from an order revoking a real estate dealer's license. Real Estate Dealers License Act, Acts 1939, 46th Leg., p. 560, Article 6573a, Vernon's Ann.Civ. Stats.
E. E. Brown filed suit in one of the district courts of Bexar County, where he resided, alleging that he was the holder of a real estate dealer's license for the year 1945, and that said license was revoked by the administrator without just cause by an order dated November 9, 1945. He prayed that the revocation order be set aside.
The Secretary of State filed an answer and prayed "judgment of the court upholding and sustaining the validity of his order duly made and entered on the 9th day of November, 1945, revoking and cancelling plaintiff's real estate dealer's license for the year 1945."
It was therefore established by the pleadings that Brown had been issued a real estate dealer's license for the year 1945, and that said license had been revoked by the administrator on November 9, 1945.
The case was called for trial and a jury impaneled. It is recited in the judgment that "the plaintiff moved the Court that the defendant proceed with the presentation of his case and the adduction of his evidence, but the Court instructed the plaintiff to proceed and thereupon plaintiff introduced in evidence the file mark showing the date of the filing of the original Petition herein in the 37th District Court of Bexar County, Texas, on November 16, 1945, the date of the citation served upon the defendant herein in his official capacity as Secretary of State, of the State of Texas, the file mark showing the date of the filing of defendant's original Answer herein on the 27th day of November, 1945, and thereupon moved the Court that the defendant be required to proceed with the presentation of his case and the adduction of his testimony, and defendant then announced to the Court that he did not have anything to offer at this time, and thereupon the plaintiff moved the Court for an instructed verdict herein in his favor wherein in his motion therefor he set out the grounds and reasons as to why he was entitled thereto, and the Court, having heard said motion and argument of counsel thereon, was of the opinion that same should be in all things granted, and accordingly granted same, * * *."
Judgment was rendered setting aside and annulling the administrator's order of November 9, 1945, which revoked Brown's real estate dealer's license.
In Gregory v. Roedenbeck, 141 Tex. 543, 174 S.W.2d 585, the Supreme Court held that the real estate business in Texas was one affected by the public interest and subject to regulation under the police power of the State. In the exercise of this power, the Legislature adopted a licensing plan under which a State administrative agency was authorized to permit individuals, firms and corporations to engage in the real estate business as defined in the Act upon their complying with certain requirements. The Act also prohibits any person, firm or corporation from engaging in the real estate business (as defined in the Act) unless a State license has been obtained.
The administrator is empowered and authorized to revoke a license under certain prescribed conditions. Art. 6573a, § 11. The rendition of an order revoking a license is clearly an official act.
We are of the opinion that by reason of the close analogy between an appeal from a ruling of the Texas Liquor Control Board under the Texas Liquor Control Act, Article 666—1 et seq., Vernon's Ann. Pen.Code, and an appeal from the ruling of the administrator under the Real Estate Dealers License Act, the decisions under the Liquor Control Act determine the disposition of this appeal.
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
House of Tobacco, Inc. v. Calvert
...annually. Boston v. Garrison et al., 152 Tex. 253, 256 S.W.2d 67. In reply petitioner cites the case of Isbell v. Brown, 196 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Civ.App.1946, error refused). In that case Brown held a real estate dealer's license for the year 1945. On November 9, 1945, Isbell, the Secretary of ......
-
Travis County v. Matthews
...cite the following Texas authorities: Texas Liquor Control Board v. Warfield, Tex. Civ.App., Waco, 110 S.W.2d 646; Isbell v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 196 S.W.2d 691; Railroad Commission v. Houston Natural Gas Corp., Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 186 S.W.2d 117, Writ Ref. W.O. M.; Arkansas ......
-
Texas Liquor Control Bd. v. McGee
...300 S.W.2d 146; State v. Peeler, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W.2d 874; Ramos v. Austin, Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W.2d 528; Isbell v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 196 S.W.2d 691. The record shows that after the court ruled that the burden of proof was upon appellant, the Board proceeded to offer proof and was pe......
-
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Carter
...the appeal could have an effect on a future license application. We have also been referred to the case of Isbell v. Brown, 196 S.W .2d 691 (San Antonio Tex.Civ.App., 1946, writ ref.), where a real estate dealer's license was involved. The applicable law provided that a license cancellation......