Lane v. Delta County
| Decision Date | 04 April 1908 |
| Parties | LANE et al. v. DELTA COUNTY. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Delta County Court; Jno. L. Ratliff, Judge.
Suit by Delta county against D. H. Lane and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
J. L. Young, for appellants. I. B. Lane, W. F. Moore, and B. B. Sturgeon, for appellee.
Appellee sued the appellant D. H. Lane and the sureties on his official bond to recover the sum of $141 alleged to have been wrongfully and illegally collected from Delta county by the said Lane, while county judge of said county, by reason of his having charged and received as alleged fees the sum of $3 each for 47 criminal cases dismissed and not tried by him. From a judgment in the justice court, where the suit was originally instituted, an appeal was taken to the county court, in which court judgment was rendered in favor of appellee for the sum of $117, and the appellants have appealed to this court.
Appellants pleaded to the jurisdiction of the lower courts, and the overruling of that plea in the county court is made the basis of their first assignment of error. It is contended (1) that the suit is one in behalf of the state to recover a penalty; (2) that if not a suit in behalf of the state to recover a penalty, the bond sued on is in the nature of a security, and the amount thereof exceeds the jurisdiction of the justice court. We do not concur in either of these contentions. The suit is simply one for and in the name of Delta county to recover a certain sum alleged to have been unlawfully collected from said county by the said Lane, and for which he and his official bondsmen are liable, if the material allegations in the plaintiff's petition are true. The amount of the bond is only involved to the extent of the sum sought to be recovered.
Assignments of error two, four, five, six, and seven are grouped. They complain of the rulings of the court on general and special exceptions to the plaintiff's petition, and to various rulings on the admissibility of testimony of an entirely different character. They are not accompanied with appropriate propositions separately pointing out the specific questions involved for decision, but with one proposition only by which the several questions are sought to be raised and presented. This manner of briefing the case is not in compliance with the rules prescribed, and the assignments will not be considered. Rules 29, 30, 31 (67 S. W. xv, xvi); Railway v. True, 23 Tex. Civ....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Nesbitt
...Mfg. Co., 59 Tex. Civ. App. 124, 125 S. W. 931; Vogel v. Zuercher, 135 S. W. 737; Fidelity Co. v. Callahan, 104 S. W. 1073; Lane v. Delta County, 109 S. W. 866; West v. El Campo Land Co., 32 S. W. 424, 426; Laredo Elec. Co. v. U. S. Elec. Co., 26 S. W. 310; Houston Saengerbund v. Dunn, 41 T......
-
Hatcher v. State, 1538-6318.
...143 Ga. 497, 85 S. E. 742. The first of the several decisions of the courts of civil appeals announcing the contrary rule is Lane v. Delta County, 109 S. W. 866, 867. That was a suit by a county against the county judge and the sureties on his official bond to recover money illegally collec......
-
State v. Hatcher
...research in other jurisdictions upon the subject. The question appears first to have reached the Court of Civil Appeals in Lane v. Delta County, 109 S. W. 866, 867, decided by the Dallas court (Judge Talbot writing), in 1908. There is no citation of authority, and the question is disposed o......
-
McKenzie v. Hill County
...128 S. W. 899, it was held that limitation would run against the county on a suit by the count on a liquor bond. In Lane v. Delta County (Tex. Civ. App.) 109 S. W. 866, it was held that in a suit against the county judge to recover fees unlawfully collected by him in criminal cases the four......