Lueders v. Ehlinger

4 Citing cases

  1. Shelor v. Comm Court of Harris Cty

    304 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. Civ. App. 1957)   Cited 3 times

    We think the law is that a court cannot require a canvassing board to act where a matter of their discretion is involved, but where the duty is ministerial, action may be compelled. Dewees v. Stevens, 105 Tex. 356, 150 S.W. 589; Lueders v. Ehlinger, Tex.Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d 1099; Williams v. Sorrell, supra; Dean v. State ex rel. Bailey, supra. In Dean v. State ex rel. Bailey, supra [ 30 S.W. 1048], it was said: 'The action of the canvassing board is a part of the election machinery, and is practically necessary in most case in order that the result may be made known.

  2. Benavides v. Orth

    120 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)   Cited 3 times

    Under the proof presented by Orth, if the committee or the trial judge, in the exercise of the discretion given by the statute, had decided not to go into the boxes, an appellate court could not require them so to do. Lueders et al. v. Ehlinger, Tex. Civ. App. 31 S.W.2d 1099; it being a discretionary act of the committee or judge. Orth did present some evidence, which was held to be sufficient in the Henderson Case, supra, and which was deemed sufficient by the committee and the trial court.

  3. Huntress, v. State

    88 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. Civ. App. 1935)   Cited 13 times
    Sustaining allegation of any one of charges authorizes removal

    It is our opinion, and we hold as a matter of law, that the defendant was not relieved of his legal duties and definite responsibilities under the terms of the statute as contended by him, and that the trial court committed no error in its rulings upon the demurrers and exceptions relating thereto, and in permitting the jury to pass upon the facts as alleged and under the appropriate charges and definitions submitted in connection therewith. Article 1656a, R.S., 1925, Acts 1933, 43d Leg., p. 217, chap. 98, § 1; 34 Tex.Jur. 451; Lueders v. Ehlinger (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S.W.2d 1099; article 1675, R.S. 1925; Acts 1905, p. 381; articles 1607 to 1644, R.S. 1925. Considering now the other defense to the causes directed against him, to the general effect that the office of the county clerk of Bexar county requires a great amount of detail work, employing more than fifty people; that no one person could keep familiar with the details of the office, keep within his mind an understanding or knowledge of the duties performed by such large number of people; that such employees perform acts separate and apart from each other; and that under the law the chief deputy of the county clerk's office and other special deputies are charged by law with the administration and responsibility of their departments, thus relieving the county clerk of such duties and responsibilities — we give attention to all assignments and propositions relating thereto, and as so fully briefed by able and experienced counsel for the defendant.

  4. Hill v. Dofflemyer

    40 S.W.2d 1112 (Tex. Civ. App. 1931)   Cited 1 times

    We are unable to distinguish in principle this case from Leslie v. Griffin (Tex.Com.App.) 25 S.W.2d 820, 821, in which it was held that the courts are without power prior to the completion of an election "to inquire as to the correctness or regularity of returns which have been made by the proper functionaries." In referring to that case, this court in Lueders v. Ehlinger, 31 S.W.2d 1099, 1100, said: "There the election officials had thrown out one of the boxes because the returns delivered to the county judge were not sealed; and the Commission of Appeals held that the district court was without power by mandamus to compel inclusion of the box in the returns on the ground that the question there presented was a political one, over which neither the Constitution nor the statutes had given the courts control.