Maddox v. York

Texas Supreme Court

Maddox v. York

55 S.W. 1133, 93 Tex. 275, 1900 Tex. LEXIS 140

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1900

DocketNo. 854.

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 55 S.W. 1133 (Maddox v. York) 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

Maddox v. York, 55 S.W. 1133, 93 Tex. 275, 1900 Tex. LEXIS 140 (Tex. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAMS, Associate Justice.

Appellee York instituted this action to recove! of appellant Maddox the title and possession oE the office of sheriff of Palo Pinto County. The rights of the parties depend upon the following facts:

Prior to the general election held in Fovember, 1898, York was the sheriff of that county and was a candidate for re-election, but was defeated bjr one Lasater. After the election and before the receipt of official notice of the result, Lasater died. The Commissioners Court declared the office vacant and proceeded to fill it by appointing appellant, who qualified and took and held possession until ousted by the judgment of the District Court in favor of appellee. Upon appeal from this judgment, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed it, two of the justices holding that the appointment made by the Commissioners Court was vklid, while the other justice dissented, holding that appellee was entitled to the office until a successor had been elected and qualified, and that, therefore, there was no vacancjq and hence no. power of appointment in the Commissioners Court. The question thus at issue has been certified to this court for determination, and the answer is tha', the *279 decision of the majority is correct and properly construes the provisions of the Constitution controlling the subject, in accordance with previous opinions of this court. The fullness of the discussion in the majority and dissenting opinions, and in the case of State v. Cocke, 54 Texas, 482, renders it unnecessary for us to write further on the subject.

Affirmed.

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

WILLIAMS, Associate Justice.

Appellee York instituted this action to recove! of appellant Maddox the title and possession oE the office of sheriff of Palo Pinto County. The rights of the parties depend upon the following facts:

Prior to the general election held in Fovember, 1898, York was the sheriff of that county and was a candidate for re-election, but was defeated bjr one Lasater. After the election and before the receipt of official notice of the result, Lasater died. The Commissioners Court declared the office vacant and proceeded to fill it by appointing appellant, who qualified and took and held possession until ousted by the judgment of the District Court in favor of appellee. Upon appeal from this judgment, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed it, two of the justices holding that the appointment made by the Commissioners Court was vklid, while the other justice dissented, holding that appellee was entitled to the office until a successor had been elected and qualified, and that, therefore, there was no vacancjq and hence no. power of appointment in the Commissioners Court. The question thus at issue has been certified to this court for determination, and the answer is tha', the *279 decision of the majority is correct and properly construes the provisions of the Constitution controlling the subject, in accordance with previous opinions of this court. The fullness of the discussion in the majority and dissenting opinions, and in the case of State v. Cocke, 54 Texas, 482, renders it unnecessary for us to write further on the subject.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.W. 1133, 93 Tex. 275, 1900 Tex. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maddox-v-york-tex-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack