Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 206
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
206 WRIGHT v. FAWCETT. [Term oL
Opinion of the Court.
608, 609), except that the contest for county officers was to be in
the County or Commissioners' Court. The court held that the
"notice and statement of the grounds of contest filed with the
clerk, are made the predicate on which the power of the court
"is set in motion." We regard that case as conclusive of this.
It is contended by appellant, however, that the District Court,
under the constitution, having jurisdiction " of all suits, con"plaints,
and pleas whatever, without regard to any distinction
"between law and equity, when the matter in controversy slhall
"be valued at, or amount to one hundred dollars, exclusive of
" interest," has jurisdiction to try cases of contested elections, independent
of the statute. It is true that the District Court has jurisdiction,
as has been often held, to try the right to an office. (Banton
v. Wilson, 4 Texas, 402; Bradley v. McCrabb, Dallam, 504.)
To decide the result of an election is a question of a different
character, "part of the process of political organization, and
"( not a question of private right." (Huselrnan v. Reins, 41
Penn. St. Repts., 396; and see Arbnry v. Beavers, 6 Texas, 469,
and Baker v. Chisholm, 3 Texas, 157; Walker v. Tarrant Co.,
20 Texas, 16.) Where the law has provided a mode of deciding
cases of contested elections, designed to be final, the courts
have no authority to adjudicate such cases, other than that tile
law may give to them. (Batman v. McGowan, 1 MAetcalf,
533; Grier v. Shackelford, 3 Brevord, 490; Skerrett's Case,
2 Parsons, 509, as reported in Brightly's Lead. Cases on Elections,
p. 320; Ewing v. Filley, 43 Penn. St., 389.)
The case of McKinney v. O'Connor, 26 Texas, 5, is cited in
support of the constitutional jurisdiction of the District Court
over cases of contested elections. The statute then in force
authorized t-he trial of such cases in the District Court by the
judge, and also gave the right of appeal to the Superior Court.
The decision was that these courts had the right to hear and
determine the cause. Some allusions are made in the opinion
to the constitutional jurisdiction of the District Court, the object
of which is not very clear, but certainly nothing is decided
in conflict with this case.
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/214/: accessed September 20, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .