Court Opinion

ID: 9832004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:32:09.209758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:40.888216
License: Public Domain

On Motion for a' Rehearing.
The writer’s coadjutors are of the opinion, in view of the decision of this court in the Messer-Cross Case, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 34, 63 S. W. 169, and the decision of the Beaumont Court of Civil Appeals, in the Kennison-Du Plantis Case, 220 S. W. 118, each holding that the service of a citation and a copy of contestant’s petition, within 30 days after the official declaration- of the results of the election, was a substantial compliance with the provisions of the statute in question, that said statute has been substantially complied with under the facts and procedure in this case. The judgment of this court affirming the case is therefore set aside and the cause is reversed and remanded, with instructions to the trial court to reinstate the case and to proceed with a trial upon the merits, if the parties so desire.
Although the writer is not entirely convinced but that this holding goes beyond a fair and, reasonable construction of what constitutes a substantial compliance with the particular article of the statute involved, yet the difference, in the procedure in this and the other caSljl/mentioned is not of such material distinction that I care to dissent from the view of the, other members of this court.
In view of ’ this holding, the question of fundamental error predicated upon the fail*499ure of the pleadings to allege jurisdictional facts is eliminated, since facts necessary to show that the court did have jurisdiction, whether alleged or not, are disclosed by the record. We have taken this occasion to examine the record in the Bassel-Shanklin Case, 1S3 S. W. 105, in which this court held that, where the record disclosed a petition in which no allegation was made showing that notice of contest or of a statement of the grounds of contest had been served upon contestee, fundamental error was apparent of record, and find that it was not shown by said record that the citation issued in the case was served within 30 days after the declaration of the results of the election, and therefore said opinion is not in conflict with the other opinions cited by this court, and does not support the former judgment of this court in this case.
The motion is granted, and the cause is reversed, with instructions as herein indicated.
Motion granted.