*1 profession private practice was in the Falls, presumably
of medicine in Wichita large
available hire Such professional services.
need of Company
services had been enlisted claimant.
for the treatment of the medical Company the agent he was an only, be-
agency character was of a Therefore
ing in behalf of the claimant. de- instance see no occasion in this applicable to rules ab- upon the based
motions for continuance holding
sence of a we fol- witness. so Ass’n Employers’
low Ins. the case of Texas Worth, Locke, 1949, Tex.Civ.App., Fort e., in- ref., S.W.2d writ n. r. grounds
stance in which like were advanced ab- this same because of the an-
sence of Dr. Ledbetter as a witness in compensation case.
The affirmed. CRAFT, Appellant,
Paul Gerald
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY et Civil
Court of
Amarillo.
Rehearing Denied Nov.
740
“Therefore, provisions under of R.C.S., 6687b, Acts of the 47th Legislature, Regular Session, your license privilege to oerate a motor vehicle and/or upon any public any or highway road and Operator’s Operator’s and all Commercial you by and Chauffeur’s License issued State, any this or or State Common- wealth, automatically suspended were for Harrell, Lubbock, appellant. for Hugh W. period a of twelve months from the above Adams, mentioned Geo. E. Gilkerson and Collier date of conviction.” J. Lubbock, appellees. for petition appel- his to the In court below temporary lant made and CHAPMAN, Justice. permanent injunction appellees answer- by plea jurisdiction. Appellant ed a receipt Appellant, upon an Order of of prayed in the alternative that if this Suspension of his Commercial Automatic court should affirm the trial court’s order Depart- Operator’s License from the plea sustaining that petition Safety filed his ment of Public permit him to remove the cause to the Court of Lubbock District the 72nd Judicial County, temporary permanent a seeking Texas. The court below set the case down injunction the Texas against time, by hearing agreement a servants, officers, Safety, its of parties, it was tried on the pleadings representatives, employees, agents and/or temporary injunction plea Director; namely, Jr., A. Homer Garrison Chief, Temple, Divi- F. Driver’s License sion; Supervisor, Driver Ferguson, F..G. With the record as stated before it the Improvement Captain Sanford Section court below held the District Court Lee, Lub- B. Driver’s License Division of did not have of the facts alleged Texas, bock, enjoining restraining and them appellant’s petition and dismissed the proceeding under Vernon’s further case. From order of appel- this dismissal suspend 6687b to Ann.Civ.St. Article perfected lant to this court. Operator’s License. plaintiff’s Commercial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of requested by appellant. part Law were suspension recited in of
The notice
findings and conclusions the court below
follows:
of
held
virtue
Article 6687b the
Suspension
The Automatic
District
did not
“Confirming
Driving
by appellant.
alleged
Non-Resident
of action
Or
the cause
License
Of
chauffeurs’,
titled, “Drivers’,
Of
article
Privilege
Said
operators’
licenses;
commercial
ac-
Gerald Craft
Paul
titled,
reports.”
Section 31 thereof
cident
Opr’s. Lie. 787032-nsi
1491
Box
courts,”
“Right of
Lubbock, Texas
as follows:
“Any
license
person denied a
show
Records
Of
“Abstract
has been cancelled
whose
September
convicted
were
you
except
by the
revoked
of the second
Mexico
New
the State
or revocation
such cancellation
vehicle
a motor
operating
offense
under
is automatic
you were under the
highway while
a
pe-
a
have the
Act shall
this
intoxicating liquor.
influence
for our
thirty
tition within
thereafter
applicable
District
As
Courts.
hearing
this
Coun-
state
the record be
us,
only possibility
Court Law in
fore
wherein
*3
reside,
person
he
would
such
shall
there
if
have been under an
therein,
injunction,
no County
equitable
then
an
proceeding. Such
county
in
county,
the
action
appellant
court of said
would
lie when
had
adequate
such
hereby
remedy
is
an
court
vested with
at law.
It
said in
is
* * *
duty
Equity
338,
and it shall
set
20,
be its
to
page
§
C.J.S.
“equity
the
for hearing
ten
will
jurisdiction
not take
Department,
adequate
notice
there
remedy
written
the
is
law,
to
at
unless
thereupon
jurisdiction
to
testimony
take
by
has been conferred
examine into the
of the
Co.,
facts
statute.” See
Burford
also
v. Sun Oil
petitioner
Tex.Civ.App,,
306,
determine whether the
is
syl.
Spe
186S.W.2d
jurisdiction
cial
subject
is
has been conferred
stat
suspension,
ute for appeals
cancellation or revocation
from
Department
acts of the
Safety
license under
the
of this
of the State of Texas in
Act.”
cancelling-,suspending or revoking drivers’
licenses by
Section Article 6687b
appellant’s
As we understand
contention
but
such
specifically
was
con
it is to the effect that Article 6687b relative
County
ferred
Courts
if
suspension provided
ap-
no
to automatic
such
there
in
person
the
of the
peal
injunc-
therefore
entitled to
proceeded against, and if not then in the
tive relief in
District Court.
the
County Courts.
appellant
agree
We
with
that one
Accordingly,
it
our view of
deprived
permit,
cannot be
of a license or
the case that the District Court below was
consideration,
the one under
without
correct in holding it did not
jurisdic
have
process,
and that notice without a hear
tion and
dismissing
in
requires
the case. It
ing, as
in
done
this case did not consti
no
authority
citation of
say
us to
process.
tute due
general
as a
rule
the
of the
Hamilton,
Safety
Public
v.
drivers their licenses to which drive because appellant’s request we could grant of convictions been to trans states had fer the case parties aggrieved appealed cancelled at Law of County. Accordingly, judg Court at Law of their re ment of spective the court below holding counties such acts on the it did not have of the is affirmed appeal is cases dismissed. believe these furnish appealed attempted to have Motion Rehearing On suspension of his license Court at County. Law of Lubbock PER CURIAM. Appellant,
Article Section 8 in his Vernon’s motion for rehearing requests Ann.St. Constitution urgently of Texas that this court grant him shall original jurisdiction what constitute to *rfile in the appeal from JLaw -of Lubbock DALLAS, Appellant,
n the action CITY OF Safety in an auto- attempting to declare suspension Opera-
matic
of his Commercial
Mrs. Rhea H. CLARK et
cites as
tor’s License. He
5539a,
his contention
V.T.C.S.
Tex.Civ.App.,
Buford v. Sun Oil
Court of Civil
We are in with *4 pellant’s right day “have in court” Rehearing Denied regret originally and we that he did not appeal file his at Law Court
of Lubbock from the action of the Under the of the two
Safety cases original opinion, cited in our Additionally,
he could have done so.
are certain that his failure to do so was
not in disregard intentional
but because of an honest mistake of his
counsel made before the announcement of
the case of Hamilton, supra, interpreting Sec. Art. 6687b.
If this court had authority to transfer
this case to Law
Lubbock County we would not hesitate so,
to do but when we do not have as only in this
we have is to dismiss. files his of Lubbock within
sixty days judgment from the time our
dismissal for want becomes
final, prerogative it will be the of the Coun- pass question at Law to whether, of Article and Buford Sun Oil
5539a at that action of the
time Safety for the reason that his originally
failure file in that court disregard
not in intentional passing question here.
Appellant’s for rehearing motion is over- original opinion,
ruled and as stated our of the court below in holding
it did not have is affirmed and appeal is dismissed.