Lane v. Sanders, 3086.

• Decision Date: 03 July 1936
• Docket Number: No. 3086.,3086.
• Parties: LANE v. SANDERS et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

95 S.W.2d 1327

LANE v. SANDERS et al.

No. 3086.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

July 3, 1936.

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1936.

Original mandamus proceeding by Wardlow Lane against R. S. Sanders and others.

Mandamus issued.

Lane and Anderson, of Center, for relator.

Sanders & McLeroy, of Center, for respondents.

COMBS, Justice.

The relator, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the office of district attorney of the 123d judicial district files this as an original proceeding for writ of mandamus to compel Hon. R. S. Sanders, county Democratic chairman, and the other members of the Democratic Executive Committee of Shelby County, to place his name on the official ballot to be voted in the Democratic primary to be held on July 25, 1936. The agreed facts show that the 123d judicial district is composed of two counties, Shelby and Panola; that in due time and in proper manner relator made his application to the Democratic Executive Committee of Shelby County to have his name placed upon the official ballot, and paid the committee $1; that the committee subsequently assessed him $100 as his proportionate part of the expenses of holding a primary election in said county and had declined to place his name on the official ballot unless he pays such assessment.

The sole question involved is whether the Democratic executive committee of a county has a right under the statute to assess a candidate for nomination to the office of district attorney, in a district composed of more than one county and less than four counties, a fair proportionate share of the expense of holding the primary election in said county. The power to assess candidates for the expenses of primary elections is conferred by article 3108 of the Revised Civil Statutes, as amended by Acts 1931, c. 105, § 2 (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 3108), which act provides the manner in which the county executive committee shall meet and determine the costs of holding the primary and further provides that the committee "shall apportion such cost among the various candidates for nomination for county and precinct offices only as herein defined, and offices to be filled by the voters of such county, or precinct only (candidates for State offices excepted)," etc. In Holzschuher v. Wurzbach, 286 S.W. 289, writ refused, it was held, in an opinion by Chief Justice Fly of the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals, in construing the language above quoted: "There is no room for construction of the language of the statute, and unless supplemented by additional authority to the executive committee to apportion parts of the cost of primaries to other officers than those specifically mentioned, the executive committee has no power...