Collins v. Tracy

36 Tex. 546
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 36 Tex. 546 (Collins v. Tracy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Collins v. Tracy, 36 Tex. 546 (Tex. 1872).

Opinion

Evans, P. J.

The question presented in this case, is whether [547]*547a jiinior commission vacates a former appointment to the office of county treasurer.

The Constitution is silent as to the office of county treasurer; but state Constitutions are made with reference to existing laws, which laws are not changed by the Constitution, except so far as they may be inconsistent with its provisions.

It is obvious that the law providing for the office of county treasurer, and prescribing the duties incident to it, is still in force, only so far as it has not been changed by laws passed since its adoption.

The office of county treasurer is recognized by the Constitution ; but the mode of appointment and the tenure of the office all are left to legislative control.

The act of 28th June, 1870 (12th Legislature), provides that “ The Governor shall appoint one county treasurer, who “ shall hold his office until the next general election in this State, or until otherwise provided by law.”

It follows from this that the county treasurer, when once appointed in the mode prescribed by law, has a vested right to his office, and cannot be removed except for cause amounting to a forfeiture of his office.

The principle that the power of removal is incident to the power of appointment, is applicable only in those cases where the office is held at the pleasure of the appointing power, and the tenure not fixed by law as in this case. (Ex-parte Hennen, 13 Peters, 256; Keenan v. Perry, 24 Texas, 253.)

There being no law of this State specially authorizing the Governor to remove a county treasurer from office, it follows that he can only be removed on conviction by a jury, after indictment for malfeasance, nonfeasance, or misfeasance in office. (See Article 5, Section 24, Constitution.)

We think there was error in the judgment of the District Court, and it must be reversed.

¡Reversed.

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

Related

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1972
Adie v. Mayor of Holyoke
21 N.E.2d 377 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Wentz v. Thomas
1932 OK 636 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)
Holder v. Anderson
128 S.E. 181 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
People ex rel. Brundage v. Hansen
234 Ill. App. 483 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1924)
Murphy v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson
104 A. 304 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1918)
Commissioners of Sinking Fund v. Byars
180 S.W. 380 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1915)
Ekern v. McGovern
142 N.W. 595 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1913)
Helmick v. County Court
64 S.E. 17 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1909)
Territory ex rel. Wade v. Ashenfelter
4 N.M. 85 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1887)
Dullam v. Willson
19 N.W. 112 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1884)
United States v. Curtis
11 Abb. N. Cas. 1 (S.D. New York, 1882)
Hunt v. State
7 Tex. Ct. App. 212 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 Tex. 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-tracy-tex-1872.