Case Name: GRIFFITH v. STATE ex rel. AINSWORTH
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-12-09
Citations: 226 S.W. 423
Docket Number: No. 1146
Parties: GRIFFITH v. STATE ex rel. AINSWORTH.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 226
Pages: 423–423

Head Matter:
GRIFFITH v. STATE ex rel. AINSWORTH.
(No. 1146.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
Dec. 9, 1920.)
I.Quo warranto &wkey;>23 — Suit dismissed when term of office has expired.
In an action in quo warranto to remove a person from an office, a suit for the office must be dismissed where the term of office has expired.
2. Appeal and error <&wkey;l 172(3) — Part of Judgment not appealed from permitted to stand, though suit dismissed as to other cause of action.
In an action in quo warranto where the judgment .removed defendant from the office and denied a recovery of salary, fees, or emoluments, the judgment denying recovery, which was not appealed from, will be permitted to stand, though the suit for the -office is dismissed.
3. Quo warranto <&wkey;63 — Costs taxed against relator when defeated on claim for salary and term had expired.
In an action in quo warranto, the costs will be taxed against the relator, where judgment was rendered against him on his claim for the salary, fees, and emoluments of the office and the suit for the office is dismissed because the term has expired.
Appeal from District Court, Pecos County; Jas. Cornell, Judge.
Quo warranto by the State, on the relation of L. W. Ainsworth, against H. B. Griffith. From a judgment against him, defendant appeals.
Suit dismissed.
See, also, 216 S. W. 469.
Snodgrass, Dibrell & Snodgrass, of Coleman, for appellant.
Howell Johnson, of Ft. Stockton, and Wright & Harris, of San Angelo, for appellee.

Opinion:
HARPER, C. J.
This is an action in quo warranto instituted by the district attorney of the Eighty-Third district of Texas, upon relation of L. W. Ainsworth, to remove appellant, H. B. Griffith, from the office of county judge of Upton county, Tex., and for-the emoluments of the office. Petition signed by both the district attorney and attorney for appellee. Tried to a jury, and upon the verdict the court entered its judgment that L. W. Ainsworth recover of H. B. Griffith title and possession of the office, and further decreed that "Ainsworth take nothing upon his suit for salary, fees, or emoluments."
From which judgment Griffith alone has appealed. The term of office having expired, the suit for the office must be dismissed. McWhorter v. Northcut, 94 Tex. 86, 58 S. W. 720.
The judgment denying recovery on the other cause of action, for the emoluments of the office not having been appealed from, will be permitted to stand. Jeter v. Gouhenour, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 643, 84 S. W. 1091; Ry. Co. v. Jarmon, 441 S. W. 155.
The respondent having successfully defended the suit for salary, fees, and emoluments of the office, the costs are taxed against relator, Ainsworth.