Court Opinion

ID: 9885856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 15:15:05.811872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:49:18.018227
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
We anticipate a further. proceeding for review of our judgment. In order to hasten the procedure, we make the following additional findings of fact: The contest was filed before the County Executive Committee on August -1, 1938 by Wheeler, appellee; the appeal was filed in the District Court by being filed in the clerk’s office August 12, 1938 by Wheeler, contestee having prevailed before the Executive Committee. No special term of the District Court was called. The case was heard at the regular term of the District Court which convened September 26, 1938, and which, by operation of law, ended October 8, 1938. In our opinion there is not sufficient time for effective action in the event we should certify the question at issue to the Supreme Court, though - we recognize that our holding herein is in conflict with that of the Court of Civil Appeals of the Fourth Supreme Judicial District in Oliver v. Freeland, 74 S.W.2d 711.
Nor have we sufficient time in which to elaborate our views and-state the reasons for differing with the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals in the case cited. Suffice it to say, that in our opinion the practical effect of the ruling in Oliver v. Freeland is fo deny the right of contesting the declared results of all second primaries; for in those cases it is impossible to try the case in the District Court and dispose of it upon appeal in the Court of Civil Appeals, where, upon rehearing, a motion may be filed, as is filed in this case, to certify the case to the Supreme Court upon the ground of an alleged conflict, which allegation may be in fact true, as it is true in this case. We cannot see our way clear to thus destroy the right conferred by statute to contest the declared result of a party primary election. Accordingly the motion for rehearing and the motion to certify are overruled.