Starr County v. Laughlin

• Decision Date: 26 October 1955
• Docket Number: No. 12973,12973
• Parties: STARR COUNTY, Relator, v. The Honorable C. W. LAUGHLIN et al., Respondents.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 830

283 S.W.2d 830

STARR COUNTY, Relator, v. The Honorable C. W. LAUGHLIN et al., Respondents.

No. 12973.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

Oct. 26, 1955.

Gerald Weatherly, Rio Grande City, for relator.

R. L. Lattimore, Pharr, for respondents.

W. W. MURRAY, Chief Justice.

This is an original proceeding in this Court instituted by Starr County for a writ of mandamus to compel Hon. C. W. Laughlin, Judge of the District Court of Starr County, Texas, to 'proceed to trial and judgment' in a contempt proceeding filed in the District Court of Starr County.

The record shows that a contempt proceeding was begun by relator filing an affidavit charging J. C. Guerra, as County Auditor of Starr County, with violating the provisions of a judgment rendered in the District Court of Starr County in Cause No. 3002. The contempt proceeding was docketed as Cause No. 3027. A hearing was begun on the contempt proceeding on October 4, 1955, after an announcement of ready by both parties. Relator called his first witness, and while this witness was testifying the following took place:

'The Court: For the purpose of this hearing the Court is going to assume that all the facts in your petition are true, and the Court is going to assume that they are true to save time. This day I signed an order making this injunction permanent according to the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, and I am not going to hold this layman, this defendant, in contempt of Court over these legal technicalities that you have there. Certainly the injunction now is in full force and effect and I am going to advise Mr. Guerra that it is in full force and effect, and he knows it is, as of this date, and I am signing the order this day. I will hold Mr. Guerra not in contempt of Court.

'Mr. Weatherly: Well, may I say to the Court that that being true, there are 144-odd claimants who have been without their pay for two months now, because Mr. Guerra has done exactly what is alleged in the contempt affidavit. It does not matter to us; we do not want Mr. guerra sent to jail; we simply want these people paid.

'The Court: I think that if they are legal claimants that Mr. Guerra will pay them if their claims are properly presented. I think that he will pay them.

'Mr. Weatherly: Well, I have this same list which is embodied in the contempt Affidavit, and which was prepared by Mr. Myers who keeps these records. I am not trying to be technical. There is no reason why he could not note on the bottom of these that each and all of these claims have been approved, and that these claims should be paid. I do not see why these 144-odd road workers should be penalized and have their pay held up because of these matters. * * *'

Respondent J. C. Guerra has filed an affidavit in this Court showing that he has now complied with all the provisions of the judgment in Cause No. 3002, and that he will continue to do so in the future.

The statements of the trial court as above set out will be better understood if the proceedings in Cause No. 3017 are set out. Cause No. 3017 was instituted in the District Court of Starr County, by Starr County against J. C. Guerra, as County Auditor of Starr County, seeking a mandatory injunction compelling him to obey the judgment in Cause No. 3002. J. C. Guerra filed, among other pleadings, a plea termed a 'Plea of Another Action Pending.' This plea was based upon the fact that a motion for a new trial was still pending in Cause No. 3002, and that the judgment in that cause had not as yet become final and that the same parties and some issues were involved in Cause No. 3005 as were involved in Cause No. 3017. The court sustained this plea and dismissed Cause No. 3017. An appeal was taken by Starr County to this Court, and in an opinion rendered in this Court on September 14, 1955, 282 S.W.2d 304, we held that no motion for a rehearing was pending in Cause No. 3002, because the alleged motion for a new trial was filed more than ten days after rendition of final judgment, and therefore this Court reversed and remanded the judgment of dismissal in Cause No. 3017. Mandate was issued in that cause out of this Court on September 30, 1955, and when this mandate was received by the trial judge, as shown by his statement above set out, he entered an order declaring the judgment in Cause No. 3002 to be final. The statement of the court shows that he was unwilling to hold Guerra guilty of contempt for his failure to obey the judgment in Cause No. 3002 prior to the time the trial judge had declared such judgment final, even though as a...