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: 341
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] ROGERS v. JOHNS. 341
Opinion of the Court.
the District Court a special tribunal for the trial of certain
cases of contested elections. In trying such cases, the District
Courts act under authority conferred by the statute, and not by
virtue of any jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution. The
citizen who claims an office as having received a majority of
the votes at an election, must prosecute his rights in the mode
prescribed by the statute. Unless he does so, he has no such
property in the office as will entitle him, in ordinary cases, to
resort to the courts. No constitutional provision is infringed
by denying an appeal from the decision of the District Court,
when it acts in such cases as a special tribunal, and not by
virtue of its constitutional powers. We regard this question
as substantially settled by former decisions of this court, though
under different statutes. In O'Docherty v. Archer, 9 Texas,
295, which was under a statute giving the County Court jurisdiction
in such cases, but giving no appeal, the court say: "In
" constituting the tribunal it was optional with the Legislature
" to give an appeal or not, as might best comport with their
" views of public policy. As no appeal was given, the infer"
ence must be that none was intended. The terms of office
of these officers are of so short duration that, in many cases,
the term would expire before the right could be finally deter"mined,
if the parties were allowed to litigate their respective
" claims through successive appeals to the court of last resort."
The District Court in that case had dismissed the certiorari, by
means of which the decision of the County Court was sought
to be revised, and its action was affirmed by this court. (See
also, Baker v. Chisholm, 3 Texas, 158; Arberry v. Bevers, 6
Texas; Walker v. Tarrant county, 20 Texas, 20; Lindsey v.
Ludkett, 20 Texas, 516.
The case of McKinney v. O'Connor was decided under a
different statute, giving the right of appeal. (25 Texas.)
In Wright v. Fawcett, decided at the present term, we held
that the District-Court had no jurisdiction to try a case of contested
election, where the contestant had failed to take the
steps prescribed by the statute-predicating that ruling on the
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/m1/349/: accessed July 27, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .