Case Name: BARKER et al. v. WILSON, Co. Atty.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-11-28
Citations: 205 S.W. 543
Docket Number: No. 5896
Parties: BARKER et al. v. WILSON, Co. Atty.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 205
Pages: 543–547

Head Matter:
BARKER et al. v. WILSON, Co. Atty.
(No. 5896.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
Nov. 28, 1917.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 25, 1918.)
1. Appeal and Error <@=>719 (1) — Fundamental Error — Reversal.
In an election contest, where court, by consent of both sides, heard law and evidence together, and entered judgment sustaining a general demurrer, there was not such fundamental error as required a reversal, where not complained of on appeal.
2. Schools and School Districts <&wkey;97(4)— Issuance oe Bonds — Legal Voters.
In order to vote at an election to determine whether bonds shall he issued to build a schoolhouse, one must reside in and own property in the school district.
On Motion for Rehearing.
8. Appeal and Error <S=662(4) — Statement oe Facts — Conclusiveness.
The statement of facts, signed and certified to by the trial judge, imports absolute verity.
4. Appeal and Error &wkey;842(2) — Finding oe Fact.
In an election contest, a declaration m a judgment that parties referred to were qualified voters, except for certain reasons, would not constitute a finding of fact, but would be a conclusion of law; hence appellants would not be entitled to have it given controlling effect in disposing of the appeal.
5. Elections <@=>295(1) — Contest oe Election-Setting Aside — Evidence.
Result of an election should not be set aside until it is clearly made to appear that the election was not properly and fairly held.
6. Schools and School Districts <&wkey;97(4)— Bond Elections — Setting Aside.
In contest of a school election to determine whether bonds should be issued to build a schoolhouse, upon the ground that certain persons were unlawfully denied the right to vote, it devolved upon contestants to show, by clear and satisfactory testimony, that such persons possessed all the necessary qualifications of voters.
7. Schools and School Districts <&wkey;97(4)— Contest oe Bond Election — Residence oe Voter.
In contest of school election, evidence held insufficient to show that one denied right to vote resided within the school district.
8. Constitutional Law <@=>29 — Schools and School Districts <&wkey;97(4) — Contest oe Election — Wotice op Contest.
In a contest of a school election to determine whether bonds should be issued, it is essential, to give the district court jurisdiction, that the county attorney be served with a written notice of contest and statement of the grounds on which the contestant relies, and service of petition of contest upon such attorney, with verbal notice, was insufficient:
Appeal from District Court, San Saba County; N. T. Stubbs, Judge.
Contest of school election by L. W. Barker and others, in which A. B. Wilson, county attorney, was made eontestee. Judgment for contestee, and the contestants appeal.
Affirmed.
See, also, 189 S. W. 748.
Walker &'Burleson, of San Saba, for appellants.

Opinion:
KEY, C. J.
An election was held in school district No. 22 of San Saba county determine whether or not bonds should be issued in the sum of $10,006 for the purpose of building a schoolhouse. There were 102 votes cast, 52 in favor of, and 50 against, the issuance of the bonds; being a majority of 2 in favor of the proposition. Thereafter L. W. Barker, Hugh Barber, and J. H. Hamlin brought this action for the purpose of contesting the election, and, among other things, alleged that the officers who conducted the election refused to permit three qualified voters to vote in the election; that, if they had been permitted, they would have voted against the issuance of such bonds, which would have resulted in the defeat of the proposition voted upon. As authorized by statute, the county attorney was made the eontestee, and, among other pleas, he filed a general demurrer, a special exception, and a general denial.
At the trial, by consent it seems of both sides, the court pursued the unsatisfactory course of hearing the law and the evidence together, and then entered judgmefat sustaining the general demurrer and special exception to the contestants' petition; and also holding that the facts failed to sustain certain material and necessary allegations; and therefore judgment on the merits was rendered in favor of the contestee and against the contestants upon the facts.
As stated before, that method of procedure seems to have been satisfactory to the re?-spective parties, and, however irregular it may have been, it is not complained of in this court, and does not constitute such fundamental error as requires a reversal.
The contestants have brought the case to this court, and seek to have it reversed, their contention being, first, that the trial court erred in sustaining the general demurrer and special exception to their petition; and, second, that error was committed in holding that the proof failed to show that two of the voters alleged in appellants' petition to have been denied the right to vote were qualified voters. If either of these contentions be decided against appellants, the judgment must be affirmed. The demurrer and exception were sustained because the trial court held that the delivery of their original petition by appellants to the county attorney, and his reading the same before it was filed, did not constitute such service of written notice to the county attorney as is required by statute as a prerequisite to the commencement of an election contest; and whether or not that ruling was correct need not be decided by this court, because the other ground upon which the court based its judgment against appellants is sustained by the record.
According to the statement of facts it was not shown that either Olay Walker or Ray Walker, two of the persons alleged to have been unlawfully denied the right to vote, resided or owned property in school district No. 22 of San Saba county. Such proof was necessary to constitute them legal vot'ers, and that, proof not having been made, the proper judgment was rendered, and it is here and now affirmed.
Affirmed.
<©^>Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes