“When the county judge is presented with a statutory petition, and proof satisfactory to him has been made that the territory sought to be incorporated contains the requisite number of resident qualified electors, then the county judge has no discretion as to whether or not he will call the election, but he must do so. If the county judge should refuse to call an election under these circumstances, he can be forced to do so by writ of mandamus.”
How later courts described this case
- “When the county judge is presented with a statutory petition, and proof satisfactory to him has been made that the territory sought to be incorporated contains the requisite number of resident qualified electors, then the county judge has no discretion as to whether or not he will call the election, but he must do so. If the county judge should refuse to call an election under these circumstances, he can be forced to do so by writ of mandamus.”
- filing of petition for in'zorporationfollowed by order from county judge calling for election on question of incorporation
- filing of petition for incorporation followed by order from county judge calling for election on question of incorporation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MR. JUSTICE WALKER,
joined by CHIEF JUSTICE CALVERT, concurring.
As pointed out by the majority opinion, the County Judge could not properly have refused to order the election in the first instance, and therefore had no power to revoke his election order, on the ground that the proposed limits did not embrace all of the territory that should be included. Ewing v. State ex rel. Pollard, 81 Tex. 172 , 16 S.W. 872 . Once that conclusion is reached, it is unnecessary to say that an election order can never be revoked. I concur in the reversal and remand of the cause but wish to reserve the question considered in Cameron v. Baker, Tex. Civ. App., 13 S.W. 2d 119 (no writ), until it is squarely presented to ,us for decision.