Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Hamilton
| Citation | 304 S.W.2d 719 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 3311,3311 |
| Parties | TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant, v. Samuel Brockman HAMILTON, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Noah Kennedy, County Atty., Ellis M. Brown, Asst. County Atty., Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Nye & Cohn, Corpus Christi, for appellee.
Samuel Brockman Hamilton brought suit in the County Court at Law No. 2 of Nueces County against the Texas Department of Public Safety under the provisions of Article 6687b, Section 31, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. The suit was in the nature of an appeal from an order of the Texas Department of Public Safety, which automatically suspended plaintiff's Texas operator's license. The court found that the Department of Public Safety did not have the authority to automatically suspend plaintiff's operator's license and rendered judgment setting aside such order. The Texas Department of Public Safety brought this appeal. The former opinion in this case is withdrawn and the judgment dated May 31, 1957, is set aside. This opinion is here rendered affirming the judgment on the same and additional grounds.
The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts substantially as follows: On April 19, 1956, appellee, Samuel Brockman Hamilton, who held a valid Texas operator's license, was convicted in the City Court of Houma, Louisiana, of the offense of operating a motor vehicle in the State of Louisiana while intoxicated. The Texas Department of Public Safety received notice of appellee's conviction in the Louisiana Court and by order dated June 1, 1956, suspended appellee's license for a period of six months. The order of suspension purported to be under the provisions of Article 6687b and was issued automatically without a hearing and without notice to appellee.
Appellant particularly urges that its action in suspending appellee's license was authorized under Section 28 of the statute which provides as follows:
'The Department is authorized to suspend or revoke the license of any resident of this State upon receiving notice of the conviction of such person in another State of an offense therein which, if committed in this State, would be grounds for suspension or revocation of the license of an operator, commercial operator, or chauffeur.'
We are of the opinion that the trial court did not err in setting aside and holding for naught the order of the Texas Department of Public Safety automatically suspending appellee's license. The controlling questions involve the power of the Texas Department of Public Safety to order the suspension of a Texas operator's license without notice and hearing and the jurisdiction of the City Court of Houma, Louisiana, to enter a valid judgment of conviction for the offense of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
Appellant contends that it has the power and authority under Section 28, supra, upon notification that the holder of a Texas operator's license has been convicted of an offense in a sister state which, if committed in Texas would result in automatic suspension, to automatically suspend such operator's license without notice or hearing. This contention is not well taken. As a general rule one cannot be deprived of a license or permit without due process, or notice. 70 C.J.S. Physicians and Surgeons Sec. 18, p. 888. A Texas statute which required the Board of Dental Examiners to revoke the license of a dentist upon proof of his conviction of a felony offense involving moral turpitude without notice and hearing was held unconstitutional. Francisco v. Board of Dental Examiners, Tex.Civ.App., 149 S.W.2d 619 (Writ Ref.).
Section 28, supra, does not expressly provide for notice but there is a presumption in the absence of explicit language to the contrary that the legislature intended a valid and constitutional statute, and, therefore, intended that due notice should be given. Industrial Accident Board v. O'Dowd, Tex., 303 S.W.2d 763. Appellant concedes that no notice was given to Hamilton. Since an administrative agency has no power to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaddy v. State
...Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 4.14 (Vernon Supp.2010); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 29.003 (Vernon Supp.2010); Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Hamilton, 304 S.W.2d 719, 722 (Tex.App.-Eastland), writ ref'd n.r.e.,157 Tex. 616, 306 S.W.2d 712 (1957); see also State v. Xoticas–Laredo, Inc., No. 04–03–00584–CR,......
-
Eschrich v. Williamson, 7313
...the court is clear in requiring notice be given in such a proceeding. In Texas Department of Public Safety v. Hamilton, 304 S.W.2d 719 (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 1957, (157 Tex. 616, 306 S.W.2d 712) error ref. n.r.e.), the Texas Department of Public Safety contended that under Sec. 28 of Art.......
-
Gaddy v. State
...Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 4.14 (Vernon Supp. 2010); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 29.003 (Vernon Supp. 2010); Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Hamilton, 304 S.W.2d 719, 722 (Tex. App.—Eastland), writ ref'd n.r.e., 157 Tex. 616, 306 S.W.2d 712 (1957); see also State v. Xoticas-Laredo, lnc., No. 04-03-......
-
Gaddy v. The State Of Tex. State
...Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 4.14 (Vernon Supp. 2010); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 29.003 (Vernon Supp. 2010); Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Hamilton, 304 S.W.2d 719, 722 (Tex. App.—Eastland), writ ref'd n.r.e., 157 Tex. 616, 306 S.W.2d 712 (1957); see also State v. Xoticas-Laredo, Inc., No. 04-03-......