Court Opinion

ID: 9832732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:08:39.881396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:51.046944
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
There is nothing in the record on this appeal to indicate that appellee, Johnson, appealed the case of Johnson v. Mooney by writ of error or appeal bond, nor was it our intention in anything said in our original opinion to find to the contrary. Appellants complain that we have given appellee the benefit of the doctrine of estoppel without any plea to that effect on his part. Appel-lee fully pleaded the facts on which we base the estoppel, and it would have added nothing to the force of this plea for him to have designated those facts as an estoppel, especially in view of his prayer for general relief. We do not think that we erred in holding that the disposition made by us of the ease of Johnson v. Mooney was res adjudi-cata of this appeal. We there held that the district court was, without jurisdiction to enter the orders of removal, and, as this case was based on the facts of that case, our disposition therein became res adjudicata.
We do not think that we are in error in holding that Judge Lowe was exercising the duties of his appointment under the tem-poraxy order. Under article 6049, it is clearly provided that the suspension of Judge Johnson could not be given effect until Judge Lowe had duly executed a bond. He did execute a bond under the temporary order, and there is no showing that he executed a bond under the permanent order. Therefore, if we correctly understand article 6049, Judge Lowe was without authority to exercise any of the privileges and duties of the office of county judge under the permanent judgment, because the necessary bond had not been executed by him.
We have given the very able argument of appellants our most careful consideration, but are of the opinion that the case was correctly disposed of on its original submission.
Tlie motion for rehearing is therefore in all things overruled.