Baldwin v. Chambers

Court of Appeals of Texas

Baldwin v. Chambers

36 S.W.2d 531

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 19, 1931

DocketNo. 3947.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 S.W.2d 531 (Baldwin v. Chambers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baldwin v. Chambers, 36 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating the case as above).

The effect of the holding of the Commission of Appeals in Chambers v. Baldwin, *532 282 S. W. 793, that the provision set out in the statement above of the act of the Legislature creating the One Hundred and Second judicial district was void because unconstitutional, and that, defendant in error Chambers and not plaintiff in error, Baldwin, was entitled to represent the state in the prosecution of criminal cases in the district court of Red River county, was to determine that said Chambers, as county attorney of Red River county, was entitled to demand and receive the fees paid by the state to Baldwin, as district attorney of the Sixth judicial district, for prosecuting such cases. Appellant’s contention to the contrary we think is not tenable on any of the grounds urged by him. It conclusively appeared from the evidence heard at the trial that such fees aggregated $1,192, the amount of the judgment in appellee’s favor. The admission in evidence of the certified (photostatic) copies of the accounts and treasury warrants covering the fees in question issued to Baldwin was authorized by article 3722, R. S. 1925. Zettlemeyer v. Shuler, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 648, 115 S. W. 78, 79. On the ease made by the record we do not think any other judgment than the one rendered properly could have been rendered by the court below.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating the case as above).

The effect of the holding of the Commission of Appeals in Chambers v. Baldwin, *532 282 S. W. 793, that the provision set out in the statement above of the act of the Legislature creating the One Hundred and Second judicial district was void because unconstitutional, and that, defendant in error Chambers and not plaintiff in error, Baldwin, was entitled to represent the state in the prosecution of criminal cases in the district court of Red River county, was to determine that said Chambers, as county attorney of Red River county, was entitled to demand and receive the fees paid by the state to Baldwin, as district attorney of the Sixth judicial district, for prosecuting such cases. Appellant’s contention to the contrary we think is not tenable on any of the grounds urged by him. It conclusively appeared from the evidence heard at the trial that such fees aggregated $1,192, the amount of the judgment in appellee’s favor. The admission in evidence of the certified (photostatic) copies of the accounts and treasury warrants covering the fees in question issued to Baldwin was authorized by article 3722, R. S. 1925. Zettlemeyer v. Shuler, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 648, 115 S. W. 78, 79. On the ease made by the record we do not think any other judgment than the one rendered properly could have been rendered by the court below.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 S.W.2d 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-chambers-texapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack