Staples v. State

Decision Date04 November 1922
Docket Number(No. 8968.)
PartiesSTAPLES, Secretary of State, et al. v. STATE ex rel. EUBANKS et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Limestone County; A. M. Blackmon, Judge.

Quo warranto by the State on the relation of L. E. Eubanks and others against S. L. Staples, Secretary of State, and others. From an order granting a temporary writ of injunction, the defendants appeal. Judgment reversed and injunction dissolved, with directions.

See, also, 244 S. W. 1064.

W. A. Keeling, Atty. Gen., John C. Wall, and L. C. Sutton, Asst. Attys. Gen., David B. Trammell, of Fort Worth, and Pope & Young, and Felix Robertson, all of Dallas, for appellants.

Luther Nickels and W. W. Nelms, both of Dallas, and Richard Mays, of Corsicana, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a temporary writ of injunction granted by the Hon. A. M. Blackmon, judge of the Seventy-Seventh judicial district of Texas, temporarily restraining S. L. Staples from certifying the name of the Hon. Earle B. Mayfield to the various election boards of Texas to be printed upon the general election ballots as the candidate of the Democratic party for United States Senator at the general election to be held on the 7th day of November, 1922.

The injunction issued by the judge of said court was issued as a proceeding ancillary to a suit by information, in the nature of a quo warranto instituted in the district court of Limestone county by L. E. Eubanks, county attorney of Limestone county, Tex., upon the relation of Wm. Kennedy and Robt. Hanna, who are alleged to reside in and to be citizens of, Limestone county, Tex., and also alleged to be qualified voters and taxpayers under the Constitution and laws of Texas. The quo warranto proceeding was instituted under and by virtue of the provisions of section 9 of c. 88 of the Acts of the 36th Legislature of Texas (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1922, art. 3174¼b).

This enactment was designed by the Legislature to prevent the control of party primary elections by the use of money. It regulates and limits the expenditure of money in such elections, either by candidates for office, or by their partisans and supporters. It is a law denominated by the generic term a "Corrupt Practice Act." Section 9 of this law provides that the penalty to be inflicted upon any candidate, who knowingly violates any of its provisions, or knowingly permits or assents to the violation of any of its provisions in his behalf by any other person, shall be forfeiture of his right to have his name appear upon the primary election ballots, or, if nominated in the party primary election, to have his name placed on the official ballots at the general election. The same section provides that —

"Proceedings by quo warranto to enforce the provisions of this (section 9) section or to determine the right of any candidate alleged to have violated any of the provisions of this act to have his name placed on the primary ballot, or the right of any nominee alleged to have violated any of the provisions of this act to have his name placed upon the official ballots for the general election, may be instituted at the suit of any citizen in the district court of any county the citizens of which are entitled to vote for or against any candidate who may be charged in such proceedings with having violated the provisions of this act."

The same section of the law provides that all proceedings instituted by virtue of it shall be advanced and summarily heard and disposed of by both trial courts and appellate courts.

Other statutory provisions, in pari materia, regulate and limit the amount of expenses to be incurred in behalf of candidates for United States Senator at party primary elections, and also provide for accountings and the filing of statements of disbursements relating to such candidacy. Article 3174k to article 3174vv, Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914.

Under the provisions of the statute regulating and limiting campaign expenses of candidates for nomination as United States Senator at any primary election held under the auspices of a political party, expenditures are limited to $10,000.

Among the allegations of the petition in the quo warranto suit is one to the effect that the Hon. Earle B. Mayfield, who claims to be the nominee of the Democratic party as United States Senator from Texas, violated the provision of the election law which limits expenditures by and on behalf of candidates for this office, for which reason he is alleged not to be the lawful nominee of the Democratic party for United States Senator. And it is alleged, in substance, that, notwithstanding the fact that he is not such lawful nominee and is not entitled to have his name appear on the ballots to be used throughout Texas at the approaching general election as such nominee, nevertheless, S. L. Staples, secretary of state, at the instigation of Mayfield, or otherwise, and acting or purporting to act as secretary of state, proposes and threatens wrongfully and unlawfully to certify to the "official boards" and to the members of such boards the name of the said Mayfield as the Democratic nominee and candidate for United States Senator, and that he is threatening to commit the alleged unlawful and wrongful act for the purpose and with the intent of causing or inducing such boards and their members unlawfully to have printed and distributed for use at such election, ballots bearing the name of the said Mayfield as the Democratic nominee and candidate for United States Senator at said general election. It is also alleged that the official boards, made defendants in said cause, and the members of the same, wrongfully and unlawfully propose and threaten to, and unless enjoined pending a hearing of the cause will, print, or cause to be printed, official ballots containing Mayfield's name as the Democratic candidate and nominee, and will thereupon provide all election officers with such ballots for use as official ballots in all voting places in Texas.

On the 28th day of October, 1922, the petition for proceedings in the nature of a quo warranto was presented to the judge of the district court of the Seventy-Seventh judicial district, who, upon consideration of it, ordered that it be filed and that citation issue as provided by law, and on the 2d day of November, 1922, granted the temporary writ of injunction which is the subject of this appeal.

The attack made upon the suit as a basis of the relief sought is comprehended in the following summarized statement of appellant's contentions:

It is contended in behalf of appellants, first, that the relators in the quo warranto proceeding do not possess legal capacity to institute and maintain the suit for the reason that they possess no pecuniary interest, or other interest different from that belonging to all the citizens of Texas; second, that the parties plaintiff are not entitled to an injunction because it is not available for the protection of any political right; third, it is contended that appellees are not entitled to a remedy by injunction because the only remedy provided in the law is by a quo warranto; fourth, the contention is made that the secretary of state and the election officials cannot be enjoined from performing their official duties in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Laramie Irrigation & Power Co. v. Grant
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 21 Julio 1932
    ... ... General, all of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and oral arguments by Mr ... Greenwood and Mr. Jackson ... The ... petition does not state a cause of action. Respondent ... contends that it is an appropriator from the Little Laramie ... River, and as that stream was separately ... ...
  • Goodland v. Zimmerman
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 16 Junio 1943
    ...Or. 641, 270 P. 513;Walton v. Develing, 1871, 61 Ill. 201;Fairchild v. City of Holton, 1917, 101 Kan. 330, 166 P. 503;Staples v. State, Tex.Civ.App.1922, 244 S.W. 1068;Yoder v. Givens, 1942, 179 Va. 229, 18 S.E.2d 380;Kelley v. Kavanaugh, D.C.W.D.N.Y.1933, 3 F.Supp. 666;Mendenhall v. Denham......
  • Leslie v. Griffin
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 20 Diciembre 1929
    ...by statute, such matters cease to be political and become judicial. Dewees v. Stevens, 105 Tex. 356, 150 S. W. 589; Staples v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 244 S. W. 1068. Appellants' next contention is that the trial court was without jurisdiction to grant equitable relief because appellee had a......
  • Kilday v. State, 9641.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 25 Septiembre 1934
    ...do not bear upon the questions here presented. Staples v. State ex rel. King, 112 Tex. 61, 245 S. W. 639, and Staples v. State ex rel. Eubanks (Tex. Civ. App.) 244 S. W. 1068, involved the office of United States Senator, as to which the Constitution of Texas does not define the qualificati......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT