Stanfield v. State
Decision Date | 12 February 1892 |
Citation | 18 S.W. 577 |
Parties | STANFIELD v. STATE <I>ex rel.</I> McALLISTER. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Minor & Powell, for appellant.C. A. Culberson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This was an information in the nature of a quo warranto to remove appellant from the office of county superintendent of public instruction of Bexar county.It appears from the petition that the appellant had been duly elected to the office for a term which has not yet expired, and that the only ground of complaint was that the county commissioners' court of Bexar county had abolished the office, in pursuance of an act of the legislature of this state, approved April 6, 1889, one section of which reads as follows: It is contended that this law is unconstitutional, because the legislature cannot delegate its legislative functions to any other body or authority.
The office of county superintendent of public instruction was created by an act of the legislature approved April 2, 1887, reading: "The office of county superintendent of public instruction is hereby created, and the county commissioners' court of any county in this state may, when, in their judgment, it may be advisable, provide for the election at each general election of some person, * * * who shall hold his office for the term of two years," etc.The act provides that such county superintendent of public instruction shall perform all the duties in regard to the public free schools of his county imposed by law upon the county judges of such counties as have no county superintendents of public instruction, and that he shall have and may exercise all powers and authority vested by law in such county judge in respect to matters appertaining to the public free schools; and that in addition thereto he shall take the scholastic census of his county.It will be seen that the act for the creation of the office was made to depend in each county upon the action of its county commissioners' court as to its taking effect there; and we are not able to see any material...
To continue reading
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Ex Parte Mode
...various counties to decide by ballot whether or not they would vote a bonus under the law enacted by the Legislature. In Stanfield v. State, 83 Tex. 317, 18 S. W. 577, our Supreme Court held it was not a delegation of legislative power to leave it optional with the counties whether or not t......
-
Ex Parte Francis
...it, yet it has as effectually done so as it is possible to do so without specifically so stating. In the case of Stanfield v. State, 83 Tex. 321, 18 S. W. 578, this same question again came before the Supreme Court. The Legislature had passed a law creating the office of county superintende......
-
Trimmier v. Carlton
...of the people at an election ordered upon initiatory petition. Vernon's Annotated Texas Statutes, art. 5686. The case of Stanfield v. State, 83 Tex. 317, 18 S. W. 577, illustrates the principle. In that case this court had before it an act of 1889 (Acts 21st Leg. c. 60, § 1), in part "The c......
-
Lyle v. State
...Other cases cited as qualifying the rule laid down in State v. Swisher are Johnson v. Martin, 75 Tex. 33, 12 S. W. 321; Stanfield v. State, 83 Tex. 317, 18 S. W. 577; Graham v. Greenville, 67 Tex. 62, 2 S. W. 742. An examination of these cases will disclose the fact that they do not qualify......