Court Opinion

ID: 9769346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:46:40.015149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:06.509596
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. While a mandamus might properly be invoked to compel a proper means of exercising ministerial duties under certain facts similar to those established in Crane v. Tunks, 160 Tex. 182, 328 S.W.2d 434, such as to compel an inspection, such remedy is not available to compel the Trial Court Judge to exercise its discretion in any particular manner or way. King v. Guerra, Tex.Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 373 (1927), wr. ref. March 7, 1928.
This court will not and should not issue writs of mandamus to control or revise the exercise of discretion by trial courts in the performance of purely judicial as distinguished from ministerial acts. Iley v. Hughes, 158 Tex. 362, 311 S.W.2d 648, and cases therein cited. No clear right has been shown authorizing the granting of the writ of mandamus. This court is not vested with general supervisory power over the District Courts, but its original jurisdiction is limited to that conferred by definite constitutional provisions and statutes enacted thereunder. Article 5, Section 3 of the Constitution of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.St.; Article 1733, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes; Yett v. Cook, 115 Tex. 175, 268 S.W. 715, 281 S.W. 843; State Board of Insurance v. Betts, 158 Tex. 83, 308 S.W.2d 846. In this latter case, this court said that if an exercise of judicial discretion by the District Judge be involved, this court may not assert its original jurisdiction to enforce its own judgment, even *303though the action of the district judge may have been improvident or otherwise erroneous.
In the case at bar, the motion for production of documents was heard and considered by the Court. The Court’s judgment recites that all parties were before the Court; that the Court
“ * * * heard the arguments of counsel in considering all matters raised pursuant to such motion and placed the motion under advisement by the Court and reviewed the pleadings, depositions and all matters of record in this cause and examined the joint income tax returns of Mr. and Mrs. Salvador Ma-resca for the years 1960 and 1961, the joint income tax returns of Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Keller filed for the years 1960 and 1961 and the corporate income tax returns filed on behalf of the District Hills Restaurant, Inc. and the Golden Door, Inc. * * * in order to determine what part of such returns, if any, were material and relevant to this cause before requiring defendants to produce such returns * * * for examination * * *; and thereupon concluded that pursuant to the motion, pleadings, evidence and matters of record before this court, the entire income tax returns in question constitute material evidence relative to the matters alleged and raised in this cause for the determination of a jury and are within the possession, custody and control of the defendants and their attorney of record.”
The Court’s judgment was entered granting the plaintiff permission to inspect and copy the documents, personal income tax returns, etc. Unless a clear right has been shown authorizing the granting of the writ of mandamus, such writ must be denied. No showing has been made by the Relators that any part of the income tax returns were not material. There is no indication that the Court’s order is void. Rule 167, T.R.C.P., provides for the inspection and copying of documents, etc. “which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action.” See concurring opinion in Crane v. Tunks, supra.
Does this court have the power to substitute its judgment, after reviewing the evidence, depositions and all matters of record, for the judgment and decision of the Trial Court and control the discretion of the Trial Court by a writ of mandamus? I say not. In the case of Turner v. Pruitt (1961), 161 Tex. 532, 535, 342 S.W.2d 422, 423, this court said that:
“writs of mandamus issue to control the conduct of an officer of government, judicial or administrative, only when the duty to do the act commanded is clear and definite and involves the exercise of no discretion — that is, when the act is ministerial. * * * [T]he many cases in which writs of mandamus have issued from this court requiring or compelling the doing of a particular act because the duty of the judge was clear and ministerial and did not involve the exercise of discretion. See * * * Crane v. Tunks, [160] Tex. [182], 328 S.W.2d 434 * * *.”
In the majority opinion in the case of Crane v. Tunks, supra, the Court stated:
“Relators complain of the order of the respondent, Judge Tunks, requiring the 1950 income tax return to be delivered in its entirety to the respondent and his counsel for examination, inspection and copying or reproduction. We hold that under the facts of the present case, it was the duty of the trial judge to examine the income tax return sought by the applicant for the bill of discovery to ascertain what parts of it are material and relevant to the main cause, and so word this order as to require only such portion, or such portions to be delivered to respondent for his discovery. * * *
“In the main we think the court’s order for discovery was a correct one. *304Under the facts and circumstances of this case we do not hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in issuing his order of November 5, 1958. We do hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in ordering an inspection of Mrs. Crane’s 1950 income tax return in its entirety, and without the judge inspecting the return so as to determine what portions were relevant and material to this cause.”
The Relators in the Crane v. Tunks case did not contend that their income tax returns were privileged documents and not subject to a bill of discovery. Relators argued in their briefs in the Crane v. Tunks case that there was “respectable” authority in other jurisdictions to the effect that such returns are privileged and that their disclosure cannot be compelled.1 However, Relators made it clear that they were making no such extreme claim of privilege. On this point, Relators said:
“All that we maintain is that the party seeking to examine and copy such returns is still required to show that they contain evidence material and relevant to his pleaded cause of action before the Court is authorized to invade, as to (but only as to) the relevant and material portions thereof, the constitutional rights of privacy of the maker of the returns.”
The Court in the Crane v. Tunks case said that the “writ may issue in a proper case to correct a clear abuse of discretion.” There has been no showing of a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in the instant case. On the other hand, the trial court proceeded in accordance with the rule announced in both the majority and concurring opinions in the Crane v. Tunks case. The trial court in the instant case has deemed that all of the involved income tax returns are “relevant and material to the issues in the main cause.” The trial court in the instant case did precisely as this court directed the trial court to proceed in the Crane v. Tunks case. I agree with the Court here in its observation that “[t]he protection of privacy is of fundamental— indeed, of constitutional importance.” However, I maintain that the Relator’s right of privacy has been protected exactly in accordance with the standards set by this court in the Crane v. Tunks case.
According to the trial court’s judgment in the instant case, all of the requisites of a bill of discovery have been met This court apparently is basing its holding that the trial court abused its discretion on the theory that as a matter of law the portion of the income tax return which shows contributions, etc. could not possibly be material; and, therefore, the order of the trial court constitutes an invasion of privacy. The trial court has reached the opposite conclusion. This court has not examined the admissions, depositions, etc. We are not to speculate on what the facts might be, neither are we to determine fact issues. How can we substitute our views for those of the trial court? It is entirely possible that the contributions are highly material. Suppose for example, that the evidence would show that Relators unlawfully drained the corporation of as-' sets and showed in his income tax return *305such funds as personal contributions when, in fact, such contributions were the funds of the corporation. Marks sued for 3% of the net profits of the corporation during the period of employment. In this case, the trial court undoubtedly concluded that Marks might be materially injured if he were not permitted to ascertain the source of such contributions. This court has no power and never in the past has it exercised the power to limit the discretionary power of a trial judge on the ancillary proceedings for production of designated instruments.
Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be refused.
HAMILTON, J., joins in this dissent.

. “There is respectable authority to the effect that such returns are privileged and their disclosure cannot be compelled. Peterson v. Peterson, 70 S.Dak. 885, 17 N.W.2d 920; O’Connell v. Olsen & Ugelstadt, (N.D.Ohio 1949), 10 F.R.D. 142; Loew’s, Inc. v. Martin, (N.D.Ohio 1949), 10 E.R.D. 143; Mattox [Maddox] v. Wright, 103 E.Supp. 400 (D.C.1952); United Motion Theater Co. v. Ealand, 199 E.2d 371 (6th Cir.1952). There is also authority to the contrary, particularly where the party whose returns are sought has in some manner put his income in issue. Connecticut Importing Co. v. Continental Distillers [Distilling] Corp., (D.Conn.1940), 1 E.R.D. 190; Reeves v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., (D.Del.1948), 80 E.Supp. 107. The pertinent authorities, and the relevant considerations to be taken into account by the Courts in various fact situations are well set forth in a note in Vol. 18, p. 149 of the University of Pittsburgh Daw Review.”