Opinion

Farrell v. Jordan

  • 338 S.W.2d 269
  • 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2479
Court
Court of Appeals of Texas
Filed
Sep 22, 1960
Status
Published
On the bench
Bell
Cited by
14 cases
Authority
More cited than 8.1%

The opinion

On Motion for Rehearing

The appellant’s motion for rehearing is •overruled.

Appellee has filed a motion asking that we overrule appellant’s motion for rehearing and that the mandate of this Court issue immediately.

Appellee’s position is that Article 13.30 of the Election Code provides that the Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction in an election contest of this kind and our jurisdiction is therefore final.

Appellant, in reply to this motion, cites the cases of Oliphint v. Christy, 157 Tex. 1 , 299 S.W.2d 933 , and Duncan v. Willis, 157 Tex. 316 , 302 S.W.2d 627 , both cases involving election contests, in each of which the Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction under Articles 1728 and 1821, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.St. The Oliphint case was one where the validity of a statute was passed on by the Court of Civil Appeals. The Duncan case was one where the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals was in conflict with other Courts of Civil Appeals decisions.

There has been no question raised in the case before us concerning the validity of any statute. We merely construed Articles 5.05, 5.08 and 13.30 of the Election Code, the validity of which no one questions.

We are convinced there is no conflict between our decision in this case and any decision of the Supreme Court or another Court of Civil Appeals.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that our jurisdiction is final in this case.

The General Election will be held November 8, 1960. The ballots must be printed so that absentee voting may commence 20 days.before such election. Time will of course be required to print the ballots. If we do not immediately issue the mandate and appellant takes the full 30 days in which to file an application for writ of error, appellee may be effectively kept off the ballot as a candidate. If we issue our mandate all uncertainty as to the duty of the County Clerk is removed, that is, he is bound to place the name of appellee on the *280 ballot. However, there will be sufficient time before printing of the ballots for appellant to be relieved of the effect of our judgment through original proceedings in the Supreme Court so he will be fully protected if the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and we are wrong in our decision of the case.

The appellee’s motion to issue the mandate immediately is granted.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.