Westervelt v. Yates, Ch.

194 S.W.2d 395, 145 Tex. 38, 1946 Tex. LEXIS 130
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMay 13, 1946
DocketNo. A-886.
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 194 S.W.2d 395 (Westervelt v. Yates, Ch.) 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
Westervelt v. Yates, Ch., 194 S.W.2d 395, 145 Tex. 38, 1946 Tex. LEXIS 130 (Tex. 1946).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Smedley

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Relator, Judge George C. Westervelt, who is now judge of the Criminal District Court of Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy and Cameron Counties, and a resident of Nueces County, filed on April 11, 1946, with the Democratic Executive Committee of Cameron County a request or application, in due form and properly executed, that his name be placed on the official ballot as a candidate for nomination to the office of district judge of the said district at the Democratic primary election to be held on July 27, 1946. The executive committee, composed of respondent H. L. Yates as chairman and the other respondents as members, rejected the request or application on April 13, 1946, and refuses to certify relator’s name to be placed on the ballot. -

Relator has filed in this court a petition for writ of mandamus to compel respondents to accept his request or application and to certify his name to be printed on the official ballot. This court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and to issue the writ. Section 1 of Chapter 4, Acts Fourth Called Session, 41st Legislature ,page 4) (Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, Article 1735a) ; Love v. Wilcox, 119 Texas 256, 28 S. W. (2d) 515, 70 A. L. R. 1484.

The executive committee of Cameron County, as its resolution or order shows, rejected relator’s application because of an Act of the Legislature passed in May, 1945, and effective January 1, 1947, which purports to make the Criminal District Court of Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy and Cameron Counties a court of general jurisdiction in a district composed of Willacy and Cameron Counties only and known as the 107th judicial district. Acts Regular Session, 49th Legislature, Chapter 300, pp. 472-474. Relator takes the position that the Act of the Legislature is unconstitutional and void because it undertakes to amend a law, or laws, by reference to its title, and thus is in violation of Section 36, Article III of the Constitution of the State, which provides: “No law shall be revived or amended by reference to its title; but in such case the act revived, or the *40 section or sections amended, shall be re-enacted and published at length.”

The Act of Legislature here involved affects by its terms the district courts of three existing judicial districts, that is, the Criminal District Court of Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy and Cameron Counties, and the district courts of the 28th and 103rd judicial districts. We need not trace the history of these judicial districts, it being sufficient to refer to Chapter 79 of the Acts of the Regular Session of the 39th Legislature (1925) pp. 243 and following, which amended, by rewriting them, three prior acts of the Legislature, and the substance of which Chapter 79 now appears in the Revived Civil Statutes as Sections 28 and 103 of Article 199. The first part of Section 28 of Article 199 relates to the Criminal District Court of Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy and Cameron Counties. It gives to that court all criminal jurisdiction and jurisdiction to try all divorce suits and suits for the collection of delinquént taxes that had been vested in the district court of the 28th district, and it fixes the terms of the Criminal District Court in each of the five counties. The second part of Section 28 provides that the 28th district shall be composed of the counties of Kenedy, Nueces and Kleberg, and it fixes the terms of court in each of those counties. Section 103 of Article 199 includes that part of Chapter 79 of the Acts of 1925 that created the 103rd judicial district, composed of Cameron and Willacy Counties, and that fixed the terms of court for each of the two counties in the district. Section 28 of Article 199 was rewritten in 1927 so as to rearrange the terms of court in the 28th district (Chapter 64, Acts Regular Session, 40th Legislature) ; and Section 103 was rewritten in 1943 so as to rearrange the terms of court in the 103rd district (Chapter 191, Acts Regular Session, 48th Legislature). There is no Section 107 of Article 199 in the Revised Civil Statutes, and it appears that there was no 107th judicial idstrict at the time of the enactment of Chapter 300, Acts Regular Session, 49th Legislature.

As shown by the caption, the body and the emergency clause, the general purposes of the Act of the 49th Legislature (Chapter 300) are: to change the name of the Criminal District Court of Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy and Cameron Counties to the 107th district court, giving it general jurisdiction but requiring it to give preference to criminal cases, limiting its territorial jurisdiction to the counties of Willacy and Cameron and authorizing the court as thus changed to try all cases pending on the docket of the Criminal District Court of Nueces, Kleberg, *41 Kenedy, Willacy and Cameron Counties, in the counties of Cameron and Willacy; to make the district court for the 28th judicial district, composed of Nueces, Kleberg and Kenedy Counties, a court of general jurisdiction and to transfer to that court all cases pending on the docket of the Criminal District Court of Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy and Cameron Counties, in the counties of Nueces, Kleberg and Kenedy; and to make the 103rd district, composed of Cameron and Willacy Counties, a court of general jurisdiction but to require it to give preference to civil cases.

The first sentence of section 1 of the Act is: “Amend sections 28, 103 and 107 of Article 199 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas and all amendments thereto, so as to renumber the same and hereafter read as follows.” The Act then proceeds to undertake to rewrite in its sections numbered 1 to 7, inclusive, sections 28 and 103 of Article 199 of the Revised Civil Statutes in such way as to accomplish the general purposes of the Act as stated above. Because the Act affects three judicial districts and some of its several provisions apply to more than one of the districts and their courts, it appears on first examination somewhat involved and suggests that instead of rewriting and re-enacting the sections of Article 199 referred to, it may merely change the sections by adding to them or substituting in place of certain language in them certain other language, and that thus it may be an attempt to amend the sections by reference. Careful examination of the entire Act, however, convinces us that it is not an amendment of that character, but that it is, as its first sentence declares it to be, an amendment by rewriting sections 28 and 103 of Article 199, and re-enacting those sections as rewritten.

To test the foregoing conclusions, we compare the provisions as to the three districts and their courts appearing in sections 28 and 103 of Article 199 of the Revised Civil Statutes with the provisions as to the three districts and their courts which are set out in the new Act. The first part of section 28 in the Revised Civil Statutes, which relates to the Criminal District Court of Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy and Cameron Counties continues that court as theretofore established, gives to it all of the jurisdiction in criminal cases, divorce cases, and suits for delinquent taxes that was theretofore vested in the district court of /the 28th district, provides for the election of a judge of the said criminal court and the election of a district attorney, and it fixes the time for the holding of terms of court and the duration of the terms in the several counties.

*42

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

Related

Sears v. Bayoud
786 S.W.2d 248 (Texas Supreme Court, 1990)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1978
Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1978
Garcia v. Garcia
334 S.W.2d 621 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Wright v. Broeter, Dist. J.
196 S.W.2d 82 (Texas Supreme Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 S.W.2d 395, 145 Tex. 38, 1946 Tex. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westervelt-v-yates-ch-tex-1946.