Rodriguez v. Vera
Decision Date | 14 May 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 12411,12411 |
Citation | 249 S.W.2d 689 |
Parties | RODRIGUEZ et al. v. VERA et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
A. J. Vale, Rio Grande City, Raymond, Algee, Alvarado, Kazen & Woods, Laredo, L. Hamilton Lowe, Austin, for appellants
S. B. Smith, Edinburg, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a final decree of the District Court of Starr County declaring invalid five orders of the Commissioners' Court of Starr County, dated August 16, 1951. Appropriate injunctive relief was granted restraining said Commissioners' Court and other officials of Starr County from giving effect to such orders. Trial was to the court without a jury. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed and are here attacked by appellants who are the officials of Starr County affected by the injunction.
The stricken orders relate to the consolidation of justice precincts and election precincts in the western portion of Starr County, together with a change in polling places.
The subjoined map shows Election Precincts Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the County as they existed prior to the orders passed on April 16, 1951. The Rio Grande and U. S. Highway No. 83 is also indicated, as well as the settlements and towns of Roma, El Saens and Escobares.
The polling places for Election Precincts Nos. 5 and 6 were located at Escobares and Roma, respectively. Justice Precinct No. 5 was the same as Election Precinct No. 5. Justice Precinct No. 2 embraced Election Precincts Nos. 6 and 7.
The orders held invalid by the district court purported to (1) consolidate Election Precincts Nos. 5 and 6, and designate the consolidated precinct as No. 6; (2) designate a place in El Saenz as the polling place for new Election Precinct No. 6; (3) consolidate Justice Precinct No. 5 with Justice Precinct No. 2, and designate the new justice precinct as No. 2; (4) fix the places for and prescribe the times for holding terms in new Justice Precinct No. 2; and (5) appoint Daniel Guerra and Jose Pilon (justice of the peace and constable of old Precinct No. 2) justice of the peace and constable, respectively, of new Justice Precinct No. 2.
The supervisory control over commissioners' courts vested in the district courts by our constitution (Article 5, § 8 Vernon's Ann.St.Const.), has been discussed in numerous appellate decisions. Orders of commissioners' courts relating to matters within their jurisdiction are presumedly valid. The establishment of election precincts and justice precincts admittedly lie within the jurisdiction of the commissioners' courts. Const. art. 5, § 18, Article 2933, Revised Statutes, 1925, § 12, 1951 Election Code, Article 2.04, Election Code, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats. In Tarrant County v. Shannon, 129 Tex. 264, 104 S.W.2d 49, it was said that:
'The appellate courts have repeatedly held that the judgments of commissioners' courts in all matters over which they are given jurisdiction by the Constitution and statutes are entitled to the same consideration as those of other courts provided for by the Constitution. Schiller v. Duncan, Tex.Civ.App., 21 S.W.2d 571; Williams v. Ball, 52 Tex. 603, 36 Am.Rep. 730; Bradford v. Moseley, Tex.Com.App., 223 S.W. 171.
See also, Cannon v. McComb, Tex.Civ.App., 268 S.W. 999; Davisson v. Eastland County, Tex.Civ.App., 6 S.W.2d 782, affirmed in Eastland County v. Davisson, Tex.Com.App., 13 S.W.2d 673; King v. Falls County, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 481; Hidalgo County v. Johnstone, Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d 825; Ham v. Garvey, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 976.
It has been said that an order of the commissioners' court cannot be considered as so arbitrary as to constitute an abuse of discretion if it be reasonably supported by substantial evidence. Railroad Commission v. Shell Oil Co., 139 Tex. 66, 161 S.W.2d 1022; Patillo v. County School Trustees of Wilson County, Tex.Civ.App., 235 S.W.2d 924.
When these tests are applied to the facts disclosed by the evidence, we believe it apparent that the trial court erred in setting aside the orders relating to the consolidation of the justice precincts.
The constitution provides that the commissioners' court shall divide the county into justice precincts court exercises a discretionary power. Consequently, in order to invalidate an order consolidating justice precincts it must be shown to be of an arbitrary nature under the test of convenience of the people. Here it is not shown that within the area of the new consolidated justice precinct (No. 2) that there is need for another justice of the peace or constable to serve the 'convenience of the peopel.' It is not shown that the population, the number of civil and criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the justice court, difficulties of travel or communication are such as would require two justice precincts.
What has been said with reference to a consolidation of the justice precincts is likewise true of the election precincts involved. It appears that a re-arrangement of election precincts in Starr County was effected in 1947, but that order is not here directly attacked. The voting strength of the present consolidated precinct is about 1,000, as indicated in the 1950 Democratic primary election. It appears that there are other election precincts in the county comparable in size, although the new consolidated precinct would be among the larger ones of the county. We cannot say that the consolidation of voting precincts effected by the commissioners' court is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable.
However, the facts relating to the location of the polling place within the new consolidated election precinct present a different situation. While the town of Los Saenz is located between Escobares (the polling place of old election precinct No. 5) and Roma (the polling place of old election precinct No. 6), it appears that the building known as the Veterans' School is not suitable for a polling place serving the large number of voters residing in the new consolidated election precinct. The trial judge's description of the proposed polling place and its environs is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Live Oak County v. Lower Nueces River Water Supply Dist.
...the Commissioners Court of Starr County with reference to justice of the peace precincts and election precincts in the case of Rodriguez v. Vera, 249 S.W.2d 689 (San Antonio Tex.Civ.App., 1952, no writ). Citing the Trem Carr Case, supra, he said (at p. 'It has been said that an order of the......
-
Grant v. Ammerman
...Phillips Investment Co. v. Road District No. 18 of Limestone County, 172 S.W.2d 707 (Tex.Civ.App.1943, writ ref.); Rodriguez v. Vera, 249 S.W.2d 689, 692 (Tex.Civ.App.1952). Since relator has an adequate remedy in the district court to challenge the order abolishing the office of Place 1, J......
-
Chenault v. Bexar County
...1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.). See Alley v. Jones, 311 S.W.2d 717, 721 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1958, writ ref'd n.r.e.), and Rodriguez v. Vera, 249 S.W.2d 689 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1952, no Moreover, as already noted, there is evidence in the record which shows why the Commissioners' Court ......
-
Ware v. Miller
...v. Alexander, 288 S.W. 606, 608 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1926, no writ) (final action required before review by district court); Rodriguez v. Vera, 249 S.W.2d 689, 692 (Tex.Civ. App.-San Antonio 1952, no writ) (acts of commissioners' courts reviewable on the same basis as those of other courts)......