Odell v. Wharton

27 S.W. 123, 87 Tex. 173, 1894 Tex. LEXIS 361
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJune 21, 1894
DocketNo. 178.
StatusPublished
Cited by40 cases

This text of 27 S.W. 123 (Odell v. Wharton) 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
Odell v. Wharton, 27 S.W. 123, 87 Tex. 173, 1894 Tex. LEXIS 361 (Tex. 1894).

Opinion

BROWN, Associate Justice.

The Court of Civil Appeals certified to this court five questions in the above cause, but it is unnecessary to answer any except the first, which is as follows:

“ Question 1. Under the Constitution as amended in 1891, giving the District Court jurisdiction to try cases of contested elections, and under the act of the Legislature approved March 29, 1893 (Acts 1893, pages 48 to 52, inclusive), known as the Local Option Act, which provides, that any qualified voter may contest the said election in any court of competent jurisdiction, in such manner as has been or may hereafter be pre *174 scribed, can a local option election be contested in the District Court, without other legislation than that now in force upon the subject?”

Article 5, section 8, of the Constitution, as amended in 1891, conferring jurisdiction upon the District Courts to try “ contested elections,” is not self-executing, because it prescribes no rules by which the jurisdiction may be enforced. Cool. Const. Lira., 100.

A contested election is not a civil suit or cause, and therefore can not be tried by the proceedings had in such cases. Williamson v. Lane, 52 Texas, 335.

Under the Constitution as it was prior to the amendment of 1891, the District Court had no jurisdiction to try contested elections, and the Legislature could not confer that jurisdiction. Chapter 6, title 34, of the Revised Statutes was in conflict with the Constitution when it was enacted, and therefore null and void. Ex Parte Towles, 48 Texas, 413; Williamson v. Lane, 52 Texas, 335; Ex Parte Whitlow, 59 Texas, 273.

The amendment of the Constitution of 1891 did not vitalize and render valid chapter 6, title 34, Revised Statutes. It authorized legislation in the future, prescribing rules of procedure by which the jurisdiction might be exercised. The Act of March 29, 1893, known as the Local Option Law, which amended article 3239, Revised Statutes, referred to any valid, laws then in force or that might be thereafter enacted upon the subject; it did not purport to revive chapter 6, title 34; and if it had attempted to do so by referring to laws existing, it would have been in conflict with article 3, section 36, of the Constitution, and void to that extent.

There is no law in force prescribing the rules by which a contested election may be tried in the District Court. The proceedings prescribed for trying suits, pleas, etc., do not apply thereto, and the District Court has no jurisdiction of this proceeding.

Delivered June 21, 1894.

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

Related

Gammage v. Compton
548 S.W.2d 1 (Texas Supreme Court, 1977)
Moore v. Edna Hospital District
449 S.W.2d 508 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Hatten v. City of Houston
373 S.W.2d 525 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1963)
Rouw v. Harrington
281 S.W.2d 746 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1955)
Carter v. Tomlinson
227 S.W.2d 795 (Texas Supreme Court, 1950)
Deshazo v. Webb
113 S.W.2d 519 (Texas Supreme Court, 1938)
Adamson v. Connally
112 S.W.2d 287 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
De Shazo v. Webb
109 S.W.2d 264 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Thurston v. Thomas
7 S.W.2d 105 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Fowler v. Thomas
275 S.W. 253 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Ladd v. Yett
273 S.W. 1006 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Blakemore v. Board of Trustees of Public Free Schools
262 S.W. 843 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
McCall v. Lewis
263 S.W. 325 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Hill v. Ramsower
258 S.W. 495 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Kinnard v. Lee
244 S.W. 1046 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Tomlinson v. Williamson
243 S.W. 287 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Davis v. Hubbard
233 S.W. 875 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Candal v. Vargas
29 P.R. 251 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1921)
Temple v. Riverland Co.
228 S.W. 605 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Shipman v. Jones
199 S.W. 329 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 S.W. 123, 87 Tex. 173, 1894 Tex. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odell-v-wharton-tex-1894.