Case Name: WINDER BROS. v. STERLING et al.
Court: Texas Commission of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1929-03-13
Citations: 14 S.W.2d 802
Docket Number: Motion No. 8405; No. 1127-5064
Parties: WINDER BROS. v. STERLING et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 14
Pages: 802–802

Head Matter:
WINDER BROS. v. STERLING et al.
(Motion No. 8405; No. 1127-5064.)
Commission of Appeals of Texas. Section A.
March 13, 1929.
For former opinion, see 12 S.W.(2d) 127.
Harris & Harris, of Austin, for relators.
Claude Pollard, Atty. Gen., and Paul D. Page, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

Opinion:
NICKELS, J.
Relators in their motion for rehearing complain that we did not pass "upon applicant's contention that the statute is violative of the Constitution of the United States, as amended by the Fifteenth Amendment thereto." We assume that counsel intended to refer to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Be that as it may, no reference to the Federal Constitution is made in the petition in mandamus.
But if the contention were made, the re-suits stated in our original opinion for denying the claim of lack of due process required in the state Constitution would cause us to make a like holding in respect to due process under the Federal Constitution.
The other matters presented in the motion for rehearing were considered by us originally, and upon reconsideration We adhere to the views then expressed.