Court Opinion

ID: 9827098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:09:52.823522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:23.115133
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Contestants urge in their motion for rehearing that service upon C. W. Be-atty, impleaded as one of. the contestees, was sufficient to give the trial court jurisdiction over the contest. We overrule the contention, not only for reasons given in the original opinion, but upon the finding of fact thereon by the trial' judge, which is not questioned, by , assignment of error here, arid upon his conclusion of law thereon, as follows: '
“4. I find that within said thirty day period Contestees Jesse McCright and C. W. Beatty were each handed copies of said notice and statement in the office of attor-rifeys (for contestants) Butler & Grimes at Robstown, Texas, the same having been handed to them by E. B. Grimes, and that thereafter copies of the .same were also mailed to said McCright and Beatty by registered mail in like manner as to the other Contestees.
“5. I find that at the time and on the occasion in which copies of said notice and statement were handed to said McCright and Beatty in person at Robstown, as referred to above, said McCright and Beatty had voluntarily gone to the office of said attorneys, who had previously been employed to contest the election, for the purpose of finding out what said attorneys had done to that end; that said McCright and Beatty were interested in the side of the Contestants herein and were desirous of seeing the election successfully contested; that said McCright was not either the *648County Attorney or a member of the school board that declared the result of the election; that said Beatty is claimed by the pleadings of the Contestants herein not to have been a member of such school board at the time the election was held and the results thereof declared; that said Beatty was not present at the meeting of the school board at which the results vof the election were declared; that said Beatty and McCright did nothing toward defending the contest, but aided in the prosecution of the same; that said Beatty has filed herein an affidavit denying the authority of Sidney P. Chandler to represent him, said Sidney P. Chandler being the only attorney in any way defending this suit or contest, and said Beatty though assisting in the efforts of Contestants herein to strike the plea in abatement on the ground that said Sidney P. Chandler was without authority, did not appear in person nor by attorney nor do anything apparent to defend this contest.
“6. I find that in the affidavit of service of said notice and statement filed herein by the attorneys for Contestants, no reference was made to any service other than by registered mail and no return of any kind was filed herein showing service in person of the notice and statement upon said McCright and Beatty nor any of tire other Contestees herein.
“Conclusions of Law
“I Conclude: * * *
“IV. I conclude that, under the facts and circumstances surrounding the handling of a copy of such notice and statement to C. W. Beatty and in view of the fact that said Beatty was in sympathy with and cooperating with the Contestants to the extent of denying the authority of the only attorney who answered in the suit, and that said Beatty was not present when the result of the election was declared and is alleged by Contestants not to have been a member of the School board, and Contestants not having offered any proof tending to show that he was a member of the school board and did not include in their proof of service filed herein any statement that said Beatty and McCright were served other than by registered mail, the handling of a copy of said notice and statement to said McCright and Beatty in person as hereinabove referred to was not sufficient as a matter of law to comply with Article 3044, R.C.S. and not sufficient to constitute the beginning or commencement of the proceedings or suit to contest the election.”
Contestants’ motion will be overruled.