Wallis v. Williams

• Decision Date: 04 March 1908
• Citation: 108 S.W. 153
• Parties: WALLIS et al. v. WILLIAMS et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

108 S.W. 153

WALLIS et al. v. WILLIAMS et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 4, 1908.

Certified Questions from Court of Civil Appeals of First Supreme Judicial District.

Action by H. R. Wallis and others against H. S. Williams and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, by which questions were certified to the Supreme Court. Questions answered.

Stevens & Pickett and J. R. Davis, for appellants. Hugh Jackson, B. F. Louis, Marshall & Marshall, and A. D. Lipscomb, for appellees.

GAINES, C. J.

This is a certified question from the Court of Civil Appeals for the First Supreme Judicial District. The statement and questions are as follows:

"This suit was brought by appellants against the appellees to contest the declared result of an election held in Chambers county on April 11, 1907, to determine the question of whether the county seat of said county should remain at the town of Wallisville or be removed to the town of Anahuac in said county. Upon the face of the returns out of a total of 634 votes Wallisville received 244 and Anahuac 390 votes. The returning board declared the result in accordance with these figures to be in favor of Anahuac by a majority of 146 votes. Upon the trial in the court below 24 votes cast for Anahuac and 2 votes cast for Wallisville at the Stowell box in said county were rejected, because the ballots were not signed by the presiding officer, and 35 votes cast for Anahuac were rejected on the ground of fraud and undue influence. Anahuac having a majority of 87 of the remaining votes, the result as previously declared by the county judge was confirmed and judgment rendered accordingly. From this judgment contestants appeal, and the case is now pending in this court.

"Two ballots were used at this election. Upon one of these ballots were printed the following words: `Official Ballot for Remaining at Wallisville' — and upon the other: `Official Ballot for Removal to Anahuac.' These ballots were prepared and furnished the election officers by the proper authority, and no other ballots were used in the election. One of the grounds for contesting the election urged in the lower court and in this court is that the ballots used were illegal, and that the use of such illegal ballots rendered the election void. Upon the foregoing statement we respectfully certify for your decision the following questions:

"(1) Does the act of the Twenty-Ninth Legislature regulating the manner of holding elections and prescribing the kind of ballots to be used in elections held in this state (chapter 11, Acts 1st Called Sess., 29th Leg. [Laws 1905, p. 520]) apply to elections held to determine the location of a county seat?

"(2) If the foregoing question be answered in the affirmative, then did the use of ballots of the kind before described render the election in question in this case void?"

The determination of the first question depends upon the proper construction of the proviso contained in section 194 of the Terrell election law of 1905. That section is as follows: "This act is cumulative as to elections and penalties for violating the election laws of this state; except that it shall repeal the election act approved by the Governor April 1, 1903: Provided, that this act shall not interfere with or repeal any local option or special laws of this state, except as herein specially provided and set forth." Laws 1905, p. 564, c. 11. If the words in the proviso "special laws" be taken in their restrictive technical sense, then the question should be answered in the affirmative; but, if they be taken in their more popular and enlarged sense, as meaning "laws specially provided for," or "laws providing for special elections," then a negative answer should be given to the question. Technically a special law is a law which applies to an individual or individuals, or to some individuals of a class, and not to all of a class; but we have no doubt that in its technical sense the laws for the removal of county seats by election are general or public laws, and not private acts.

But there is another sense in which the word "special" as applied to laws is used. "General" is opposed to "special," and hence any law which makes provision for a special election is a special law in its popular sense. Therefore laws for a local option election, for a stock law election, and others of a like character, while general in a technical sense, are frequently spoken of not only in ordinary conversation as special laws, but also by eminent jurists and judges of our highest courts. As pointed out by counsel for appellees in their brief in Ellis v. Batts, 26 Tex. 707, Judge Moore uses this language: "It is a well-settled rule for the construction of statutes that a general law will not be held to repeal a particular and special one on the same...