Case Name: EUCALINE MEDICINE CO. et al. v. STANDARD INV. CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1930-01-25
Citations: 25 S.W.2d 259
Docket Number: No. 10485
Parties: EUCALINE MEDICINE CO. et al. v. STANDARD INV. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 25
Pages: 259–263

Head Matter:
EUCALINE MEDICINE CO. et al. v. STANDARD INV. CO.
No. 10485.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.
Jan. 25, 1930.
Rehearing Denied March 8, 1930. On Motion for Rehearing.
Ross Scott and J. E. Gilbert, both of Dallas, for appellants.
Collins & Houston, of Dallas, for appellee.

Opinion:
LOONEY, J.
This appeal is from an adverse judgment against appellants in favor of Standard Investment Company, in an action on a promissory note. The case has not been briefed by appellants, their contention, made in open court, being that the record discloses fundamental, and therefore reversible error. However, affirmance may be had under the view presented in the brief filed for appellee, if the contention of appellants is not tenable.
/ The sole contention of appellants urged in their motion for a new trial in the court below was that the judgment was void, in that, the judge before whom the case was tried had not been legally elected to preside in the 95th judicial district, where the judgment was rendered; that said judge, the 1-Ion. R. J. Williams, was the duly elected and qualified district judge for the 102d judicial district of Texas, sitting at the time in the 95th judicial district, of which Hon. Royal R. Watkins was the duly elected, qualified, and acting judge.
Judge Williams of the 102d judicial district was holding a concurrent term of court in the 95th judicial district under an order made by Hon. Joel R. Bond, presiding judge of the First administrative judicial district, as authorized by the provisions of chapter 156, Acts of the Regular Session of the 40th Legislature, known as the "Administrative Judicial Districts" Act. The record discloses that, at the time Judge Williams tried the case, Judge Watkins, the regular judge, was also presiding in said court, actively engaged in discharging duties as district judge.
The contention of appellants below was that the act of the Legislature, under authority of which Judge Bond, presiding judge of the administrative judicial district, assigned Judge Williams of the 102d district to the performance of duty in the 95th district, was unconstitutional; that Judge Williams was without eonstitutional,_iLuthprity — tQ".preside or reñdeE3Msments injsaid. court; anxU&aL, thirprficeedings involved were in violation of sections 7 and 11 of article 5 of the Consti-tufioiTand therefore void.
This identical question was presented to the El Paso Court of Civil Appeals in the case of Currie v. Dobbs, 10 S.W.(2d) 438, 440, and was by said court decided adversely to the contention of appellant. In that case Judge Higgins, for the court, used the following pertinent -language: "Section 11 of article 5 of the Constitution, among other things, provides: 'And the district judges may exchange districts, or hold courts for each other when they may deem it expedient, and shall do so when required by law.' This provision is sufficient authority in support of the laws mentioned."
In our opinion, the holding of the El Paso court is correct and the rule announced is decisive of this controversy. The ease will therefore be affirmed, with judgment running against appellants and sureties upon their supersedeas bond.
Affirmed.