Moore v. Commissioners' Court of Titus County

192 S.W. 805, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 152
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 1, 1917
DocketNo. 1749.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 192 S.W. 805 (Moore v. Commissioners' Court of Titus County) 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
Moore v. Commissioners' Court of Titus County, 192 S.W. 805, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 152 (Tex. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

LEVY, J.

The proceeding is to contest an election held in justice precinct No. 3 of Titus county for the- purpose of preventing the running at large of hogs, sheep, and goats in said precinct. The .court sustained a general demurrer to the petition, and the appeal is to review the ruling of the court In that respect.

The petition alleged that the county attorney had agreed that a notice of the contest need not be given to him by the contestants and had agreed to waive such notice and service thereof upon him. The petition does not undertake to allege that a written statement of the grounds of the contest had been served upon the county attorney, of the county. The statute requires the giving of notice of the contest (article 3151, Vernon’s Sayles’ Statutes), and requires that the county attorney in this character of proceeding “shall be served with notice and statement” (article 3078, Vernon’s Sayles’ Statutes). The giving and serving of the notice required by the statute is not for the benefit of the county attorney and peculiarly personal to him, who is merely a formal party to such proceeding. The giving and serving of the notice prescribed by the statute is the prerequisite to the jurisdiction of the district court. Cauthron v. Murphy, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 462, 130 S. W. 671. A specific mode of contesting an election having been prescribed by the statute, that particular mode alone can be resorted to; it is exclusive of every other mode. And this particular proceeding is not a contest as between two persons, so as to authorize and warrant the county attorney to waive a statutory procedure essentially involving jurisdiction of the district court.

It is believed the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Grizzaffi v. Lee
517 S.W.2d 885 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Walker v. Thetford
418 S.W.2d 276 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1967)
Ferguson v. Commissioners Court of Sabine County
230 S.W.2d 303 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Benton v. Long
128 S.W.2d 446 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Bahn v. Savage
120 S.W.2d 644 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Crawford v. Maples
114 S.W.2d 696 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Adamson v. Connally
112 S.W.2d 287 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Garitty v. Halbert
235 S.W. 231 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 S.W. 805, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-commissioners-court-of-titus-county-texapp-1917.