Wright v. Broeter
Decision Date | 30 August 1946 |
Docket Number | No. A-1012.,A-1012. |
Parties | WRIGHT v. BROETER, District Judge, et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Original proceeding by Halsey Wright for a writ of mandamus commanding the Honorable L. Broeter, District Judge, and others to proceed to the trial of a case filed by relator.
Writ directed to issue as prayed and right to file motion for rehearing denied.
Sidney P. Chandler and Chandler, Barber & Trimble, all of Corpus Christi, for relator.
Lloyd & Lloyd and E. G. Lloyd, all of Alice, for respondent Broeter.
By this original proceeding Halsey Wright seeks to compel by mandamus the Honorable L. Broeter, Judge of the 79th Judicial District, which district includes Jim Wells County, to proceed to the trial of a case filed by him in that court. Under authority of article 1734, Revised Statutes 1925, this court has jurisdiction to hear the cause and grant the writ, if warranted by the record. Petitioner shows satisfactory reasons for not filing this action in the Court of Civil Appeals in the first instance.
The facts are undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows: H. T. Sain, one of the respondents, is Sheriff of Jim Wells County and was a candidate for renomination in the Democratic primary election held on July 27, 1946. Relator Halsey Wright was the opposing candidate. On the face of the election returns Sain received a majority of the votes and was declared the nominee for the office by the Democratic Executive Committee of Jim Wells County. On August 2, 1946, the executive committee issued a certificate of nomination in favor of Sain. Four days later relator filed suit in the district court of that county contesting the certificate of nomination alleging, among other things, that he had received at least 150 more votes than respondent Sain, but was deprived of the benefit of all the votes cast for him through frauds and illegalities in certain named election precincts. Judge Broeter called a special session of the court to convene on August 15 and set the case for a hearing on that date. The district clerk prepared a copy of the grounds of the contest together with the notice of the date set for hearing and a regular citation to be served upon Sain. These instruments, together with a copy of the order providing for such hearing and a copy of the order calling the special term of court, were placed in the hands of a constable, who executed the citation by leaving copies of the above-named instruments with Ollie Fuller, Deputy Sheriff, a person over the age of sixteen years, at the usual place of business of the contestee, that being the Sheriff's office in the court house of Jim Wells County. Another citation, including copies of the above-named instruments, was placed in the hands of the same constable for personal service upon Sain, but after diligent search by the constable and the relator Sain could not be found or his whereabouts ascertained.
On the day appointed, August 15, the case was called for trial, but the judge, being of the opinion that there had been no legal service of process upon Sain, declined to hear the case. Instead he reset same for trial on August 23 with the requirement that personal service be had upon Sain before the case proceed to trial. It is made to appear that the case has been reset for September 3rd subject to process being served upon Sain.
Judge Broeter has filed an answer to relator's petition in which he presents reasons for his conclusion that the law requires personal service upon Sain, but in that connection he states that he recognizes that it is proper for the court of last resort to determine the legal question presented, and that he will gladly and promptly obey the opinion and mandate of this court whatever our conclusion may be. The question presented, then, is not one of an arbitrary refusal of a trial judge to discharge the duties of his office, but is purely a question of the construction of statutes.
In 1938, in the case of Iles v. Walker, Chief Justice, et al., 132 Tex. 6, 120 S.W.2d 418, it was suggested that it would be wise and proper for the legislature to make some provision for service other than personal service in election contest cases where the contestee cannot be located. Thereafter, the 47th Legislature, in 1941, enacted House Bill No. 203, Article 3152, Revised Statutes of Texas, Vernon's Ann.Civ. St. art. 3152, to meet that situation. That article, as amended, together with the emergency clause, reads as follows:
Service was had upon Sain in compliance with the terms of that article.
The legislature at a later date in the same session enacted House Bill No. 857, Laws 1941, c. 635, Section 5 of which, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 3130, reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fariss v. Tipps
...in both civil and criminal cases, see Lord v. Clayton, 163 Tex. 62, 352 S.W.2d 728 (1961) (Habeas corpus proceeding); Wright v. Broeter, 145 Tex. 142, 196 S.W.2d 82 (1946) (Election contest); Texas State Bd. of Examiners in Optometry v. Carp, 388 S.W.2d 409 (Tex.Sup.1965) (Declaratory judgm......
-
State v. McClelland, A-2410.
...and by virtue of Rule 515 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure the right to file a motion for rehearing is denied. Wright v. Broeter, 145 Tex. 142, 196 S.W. 2d 82. ...
-
Loudermilk v. Wilson, 2713.
...We conclude there is no conflict between said articles relative to the amendment of pleadings as applicable here. See Wright v. Broeter, 145 Tex. 146, 196 S.W.2d 82; Cain v. State, 20 Tex. 355; McGrady v. Terrell, 98 Tex. 427, 84 S.W. 641. However, if the articles were in conflict with refe......
-
Martin v. Sheppard
...same session of the legislature should be construed together as if embodied in one single act. Cain v. State, 20 Tex. 355; Wright v. Broeter, Tex.Sup., 196 S.W.2d 82; State v. Dyer, 200 S.W.2d 813, released by this court March 26, 1947. Considering these two acts as one, no inconsistency be......