State Ex Rel. Hightower v. Larimore

Texas Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Hightower v. Larimore

295 S.W.2d 654, 156 Tex. 267, 1956 Tex. LEXIS 614

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 14, 1956

DocketA-6048

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 295 S.W.2d 654 (State Ex Rel. Hightower v. Larimore) 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

State Ex Rel. Hightower v. Larimore, 295 S.W.2d 654, 156 Tex. 267, 1956 Tex. LEXIS 614 (Tex. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This is a proceeding in rem instituted by the Chief of Police of the City of Fort Worth, Texas, to obtain an order for the destruction of a “pinball machine” in accordance with Articles 636 and 637, Y.A.P.C. The trial court denied the petition for the order of destruction and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 293 S.W. 2d 277.

The Court of Civil Appeals correctly held that the evidence at the trial shows without dispute that the pinball machine was a gambling device per se under the terms of Article 619, V.A. P.C. and the above cited statutes. The trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that the plaintiff had the additional burden of proving the machine was being used for gambling purposes. In the recent case of B. H. Williams et al v. State of Texas et al, 283 S.W. 2d 444, 447, the Court of Civil Appeals at Waco passed upon this identical question and construed Article 637 as follows:

“From the foregoing statute it is apparent that if the court before whom an application to destroy is pending shall determine that if 1) the property seized is gambling equipment per *269 se, or 2) the property was being used for gambling purposes, it can be confiscated and destroyed.”

The above interpretation of the statute was approved by the Supreme Court by its refusal of an application for writ of error in that case. (154 Texas 655). Since the plaintiff in the preseent case proved that the pinball machine was a gambling device per se, the machine should have been condemned under the statute.

The decision of the Court of Civil Appeals in the present case being in conflict with the decision in the Williams case which was approved by the Supreme Court, the judgments of the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals in this case are reversed upon the application for writ of error. Rule 483, T.R.C.P. Thompson v. Gibbs, 150 Texas 315, 240 S.W. 2d 287. The cause is remanded to the trial court to enter an order consistent with the above opinion.

Opinion delivered November 14, 1956.

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

PER CURIAM

This is a proceeding in rem instituted by the Chief of Police of the City of Fort Worth, Texas, to obtain an order for the destruction of a “pinball machine” in accordance with Articles 636 and 637, Y.A.P.C. The trial court denied the petition for the order of destruction and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 293 S.W. 2d 277.

The Court of Civil Appeals correctly held that the evidence at the trial shows without dispute that the pinball machine was a gambling device per se under the terms of Article 619, V.A. P.C. and the above cited statutes. The trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that the plaintiff had the additional burden of proving the machine was being used for gambling purposes. In the recent case of B. H. Williams et al v. State of Texas et al, 283 S.W. 2d 444, 447, the Court of Civil Appeals at Waco passed upon this identical question and construed Article 637 as follows:

“From the foregoing statute it is apparent that if the court before whom an application to destroy is pending shall determine that if 1) the property seized is gambling equipment per *269 se, or 2) the property was being used for gambling purposes, it can be confiscated and destroyed.”

The above interpretation of the statute was approved by the Supreme Court by its refusal of an application for writ of error in that case. (154 Texas 655). Since the plaintiff in the preseent case proved that the pinball machine was a gambling device per se, the machine should have been condemned under the statute.

The decision of the Court of Civil Appeals in the present case being in conflict with the decision in the Williams case which was approved by the Supreme Court, the judgments of the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals in this case are reversed upon the application for writ of error. Rule 483, T.R.C.P. Thompson v. Gibbs, 150 Texas 315, 240 S.W. 2d 287. The cause is remanded to the trial court to enter an order consistent with the above opinion.

Opinion delivered November 14, 1956.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 S.W.2d 654, 156 Tex. 267, 1956 Tex. LEXIS 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hightower-v-larimore-tex-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack