Case Name: Tom H. Hamilton v. Richard I. Munroe
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-10-31
Citations: 116 Tex. 153
Docket Number: Application No. 14959
Parties: Tom H. Hamilton v. Richard I. Munroe.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
Tom H. Hamilton v. Richard I. Munroe.
Application No. 14959.
Decided October 31, 1926.
(287 S. W., 306).
W. L. Eason, Nat Harris, and J. A. Kibler, for applicant.
State officers are those whose duties concern the State-at-large, or the general public, though exercised within defined limits, and to whom are delegated the exercise of a portion of the sovereign power of the State. McCullough v. Scott, 109 S. E., 789; In re: Opinion of the Justices, 46 N. E., 118; State v. Jorgenson, 142 N. W., 450; In re: Police Commissioners, 49 Atl., 36; State v. Romero, 17 N. M., 88, 125 Pac., 617; State v. Twitchell, 4 Wash., 715, 31 Pac., 19; State v. Shagren, 157 Pac., 31.
The district court being vested by the Constitution with general jurisdiction, the judge thereof being paid by the State and exercising a part of the sovereign power of the State for the general public, is a State officer within the meaning of Art. 3153, Rev. Civ. Stats., 1925. Arts. 184, 185, Penal Code, 1925; State v. Twitchell, 4 Wash., 715, 31 Pac., 19; Colbert v. Bond, and Glisson v. Calloway, 75 S. W., 1061; State v. Romero, 17 N. M., 88, 125 Pac., 617; Griffin v. Rhoton, 85 Ark., 89, 107 S. W., 380.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case, holding that the office of district judge is a district office within the meaning of the primary election laws of the State, which make the judgment of the District Court final in a contest of the election for the nomination for the office of district judge, is conclusive of the question and meets with our approval. It follows that the Court of Civil Appeals had no jurisdiction of the appeal of the plaintiff in error and properly dismissed the appeal. Since the Court of Civil Appeals had no jurisdiction, we have none and the application for writ of error is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.