Honorable Reuben Wlliams 

Searetary to 'the Governor 

Auustin, Texas 

Dear Mr. Williams: 

Opinion No. O-1586 

Ret hthority of Governor to appoint an attorney to try a 

suit where the regular judge 

is disqualified. 

This department acknowledges receipt of your letter of the 9th 

inst., in which you stats, 

'Mr. J. F. Hair, Attorney for the Plaintiffs in 

Cause Ho. 62361, the Stata of Texas, et al V. Gulf Produation Company, at al, pending in the 63rd Judicial 

Distriot Court of Travis County, Texas, has requested 

Governor O%~nisl to appoint a speoial Cistrict Judge 

to preside in said Cause for the reason that all four 

Judges in the Administrative Judioial Distriot, inoluding the presiding Judge before whom the ease is pending, 

are disqualified to sit in this case and for the reason 

that Mr. Hair will not agree upon the appointment of an 

attorney to aat as Special Judge. 

"Itisoxrr understanding that under Article 1985, 

Revised Civil Statutes, 1925, the Governor is authorized 

to designeta some District Judge in an adjoining district 

to exchange bentihes and try a aase when the presiding 

judge has oertified his disqualification to the Govarv:o?. 

Mr. Bair has taken the position that Article 1885 does 

not apply to thotie oases pending in a Distriot Court 

where thwpresiding Judge of the AZPninistrative Judioial District is disqualified to try the'case. I will 

appreciatd your informing 'the Governor whsthbr or not 

he is authorized to request the Judge before whom this 

cause is pending to exchange benches with a Judge of 

an adjoining district to try this case." 
Honorable Reuben Williams, Page 2 (O-1666) 

In the ease of Moore v. Davis, 32 S.W. (2) 161 (Cw. App.), 

it was held that the admi&trative juacial act of the 40th Legislature (Vernon's Article 200a) relating to themsigcwnt of Distriot 

Judges is annulative of other statutes relating to the ssnw subject. 

We see, therefore, that it is not necessary to consider this act in 

an-ring the question propounded by you. : 

In view of the decision in the case of Rarris v. State, 

288 S.W. 450 (Court of Criminal Appeals), i*tll not be neoessary 

for us to disouss the question whether parties to the suit by virtue 

of Arti 5, Section 11 of the Constitution may agree upon an attomey tc try the ease. Your lettar states+hat one of the attorneys will 

not agree upon the appointment of an attorney to act a8 special judge. 

This loaves us to a consideration of Article 1665, R.C.S., 

1925, which reads as follcwsr 

"No change of venue shall be necessary because 

of the disqualification of a distriot judge, but he 

shall immediately certify his disqualification to the 

Gcvemor,'whsraupon the Governor shall designate some 

diatriot judge in an adjoining district to exchange 

and try such case or oases, snd he shall notify both 

of said judges of such orders and such judges shall 

exchange districts for the purpose of disposing of 

suoh case or oases, If said judges be prevented from 

exchanging districts, the parties or their counsels 

ssay agree upon an attorney of the court for the trial 

thereof, and failing to agree, suoh fact shall be 

certified to the Governor by the District Judge, or 

the special judge, whersupon the Governor shall appoint 

a person legally qualified to aot as judge in the trial 

of the oa8e.s 

If the district judge before whom the oause is pending has 

not certified to the Governor his disqualification, the Governor does 

not have authority to take any action whatever with reference to the 

ease . Your letter does not state whether the Governor has reoeived a 

certificate of disqualification from the District' Judge. 

If the Governor has reoeived a oertifiaate of disqualification from the District Judge, he is not authorized in the first inStan& to appoint an attorney as a special judge. See Blanks v. State, 

266 S. W. 452 and'Harris v. State, supra. The Govemor~erely has 

authority to designate souse district judge in an adjoining district to 
Ronorable Reuben Williams, Page 9 (o-1566) 

to exchange benohes with the regular judge and to notify both 

judges of his order. 

If the judges are prevented from exchanging benohes, 

the parties to the cause may then agree upon an attorney for the 

tril of the *ase. If the parties fail to agree, suah fact may be 

oartified to the Governor by the Distriot Judge, and upon the x-eoeipt of a certificate of the inability of the parties to agme, 

the Governor may then appcint a person legally qualified to act as 

Judge. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

BY 

s/H. Grady Chandler 

Ii. Grady Chamdler 

iissistti 

HGG:BT:egr 

APPROVED OCT 14, 1939 

s/Robert E. Kepke 

&stingATTORNEYGENERAL OFTRXAS 

Approved Cpinion Compnittae 

By BWB Chairman