*1 REPORTER SOUTHWESTERN (cid:127)1064 ¿be designated might Morris, judgment R. A. for be there recovered state of Texas as $30.75, being de- sum the amount of shipping furnished instructions true, inspecting being fees claimed him for the transaction ánd due cat- Such fendant. was character, one, clearly, “about into in and tle to be removed defendants interstate republic to, through port of Mexico above referred the statutes Paso, county, Tex., El in El application. Paso on or about can have no day March, the 30th 1921.” in court was error the trial It follows that appealed The was case El coun- sustaining Paso demurrer and such ty law, court at plain- exceptions and there tried under writ- special as attack the pleadings agreed ten facts, and on the petition ground statement of that its tiff’s being plaintiff above-stated amount ad- appeared no had it face permit controversy, resulting full mitted amount in in the state Texas. do business judgment in a pellee for said sum in favor opinion clearly of that the [3] We also against appellants sure- and their did, plaintiff might elect, as it to sue ties. arbitrators, and, in the award of the judgment Prom the of the court at only, upon the breach the con alternative appealed law the case was to this court. provision for the award of the The tract. above-agreed clearly Prom the statement contained, according to the arbitrators was appears- controversy the amount original petition, plaintiff’s contract give jurisdiction not sufficient to this court and, according parties, to the between the of the of the suit. allegations plaintiff’s petition, further Por appeal the reason stated the to this had under .the terms of the arbitration court is jurisdiction. for dismissed want of original it must held contract. Therefore be in arbitration and arbitrators has as its basis award original character, and there contract suggested, no reason we think none award, be, STAPLES, Secretary why could et al. v. STATE (No. 8951.) rel. KING et al. arbitrators and filed in the court Nacogdoches county, up should be sued (Court Appeals of Civil of Texas. Dallas. on, plaintiff as the to do. elected Rehearing Oct. 1922. remanded. Reversed and 2, 1922.) Denied Nov. Appeal 1. Appeal and error <§=>447 from or- — granting temporary der gives ap- pellate jurisdiction exclusive junction, impair but does not trial court’s jurisdiction v. CASTLEBERRY. ROBINSON et al. of main issue. (No. 1367.) In warranto to determine the candidate, of a claimed to have Ver- violated (Court Paso. of Civil of Texas. El non’s regulating expenses Civ. St. art. 3174]4^ 1922.) Nov. primary elections, have name on <&wkey;65 under Rev. Appeal and error amount —Where Ap- St. peals by election, Court of controversy $30.75, only Ap- of state and the board of peals jurisdiction. has no from an order them from Appeals on The Court of from coun- candidate’s name on justice ty originating case court has gives appellate jurisdiction court exclusive inspecting no of a for fees for but does not controversy where the amount cattle was impair court’s trial only $30.75. case, though main involves same County Paso El Court at Appeal pass required those the trial Deaver, Judge. Raw; J. M. upon. Castleberry against Suit R. D. H. R. <&wkey;>!— “prohibition” 2. Prohibition Writ of. judgment Prom a Robinson and others. granted only prevent inferior tribunal justice plaintiff and a similar exercising jurisdiction which it has no lawful county court, defendants judgment appeal. to exercise. dismissed. prohibition extraordinary is an judicial jurisdiction, superior writ to court of Harrington, Paso, appellants. Del Roomis & of El ju- and directed to one of inferior Paso, Kirkland, appel- El . only greatest caution, risdiction lee. preventing the inferior exercising tribunal which it Castleberry, appel- WARTHARR, R. J. R. lawful has no exercise. inspector lee, of hides and animals for El definitions, Note.—Eor see [Ed. Words justice county, Phrases, Series, this suit and Second Paso First Prohibi- of).] (Writ against appellants, H. Robinson R. KEY-NUMBER, Key-Numbered Digests topic —<T?nT- in ail Indexes other cases see ty; L. ment maintain the junction of ance with fied relation of C. is whether or Earle B. From 1922, providing writ of ordered be acts the general at the order granting by any party porary have his name straining allowing appeals sions of article granting, ment date for suit ed in connection boards of election have no concern *2 Tex.) Dallas, enjoin state the as both of Port 317414b Senator, of that son, Mr. ting Caldwell and David B. Quo W. A. Luther Nickels The HAMILTON, [1] The adjudged right Hawkins questions (245 ballots On Motion'for Writ of Prohibition. him. his of Worth, reversed an Democratic nominee for them question general election, appellees seeking injunction expenditures Corsicana, election. The to of title issue. Their interest the district court of Navarro Keeling, Atty. from District a Mayfield one ultimate issue in of the Hon. Earle B. prohibition refusing, show J. Gallicutt Secretary thereon as a Democratic candi- restraining principal affected Scarborough, exclusively not, the defendants is be from an order or contempt. J. This for the 10B, such certification from the Staples, secretary appellees seeking appellants. predicated King used, cause the Hon. Earle B. and W. W. performing with, on the has forfeited his the election under the writ the State S. is Court’s Courts trial Vernon’s Civ. St. Revised Civil Phillips, ancillary of States Senate by, appellees. injunction and others etc., Court, ordered. Defendants suit to which on the official why they regulating Gen., is primary dissolved, in accord- the election boards sible construction to dissolving 639). between a Trammell, court in an with the name of Judge. answer to of Texas on temporary of the court to Hart & Patter- facts, ancillary to, Nelms, Navarro the ministerial not appeal. state and restrains Richard ultimate suit. injunction board's principal appears only under Trammell the name of Issuance and others. elections. should against and limit- STAPLES to forfeit judgment disposing the Hon. appellees Statutes, proceedings, prescribed by Mayfield in, both permit- at county article Mays, grant- Coun-. provi- ballot Supp. Judg- certi- judg their writ tem- 'the (244 S.W.) not the and re- an of S. & venting rant leaves by appellants. of exclusive a the with the trict diction ings performing. granting tude of the Earle B. of inferior est main Mayfield unimpaired. exercise. this ease unless it made appeal completely divests the' trial court of dinary ultimate stated, exclusively places junction jurisdiction v: STATE derived, the court. hearing with or judgment which jurisdiction latter’s the redressed in the low tained ment appellees exercise trial of that ing writ, jurisdiction. erence to which it sons sents. Whatever jurisdiction [2] the trial court superior this caution, injunction unaffected contemplated proceedings suit having jurisdiction Mayfield, upon ticket at the injunction justify instituted court Navarro to issue the writ of jurisdiction, issue The writ disposing merely upon appellees statute, are to control the judicial It necessity controversy, right. judgment impair jurisdiction considerations jurisdiction Mayfield. The in the cannot be any party in the case between jurisdiction only trial properly inferior jurisdiction it, of the case, it, there. This The by general temporary passing impinge upon which Such fact and circumstance do fully subject-matter feature of the controversy writ should not be issued resort or a in terms free from of feature writ cannot only claim the the force of have dispose must case which the course court’s thjs hut, appellees against prohibition grievance subject-matter of the in- the facts from which the is invests this tribunal and that can be used The contemplated of this lodges still to the contest between of his has no be, at the same Such with reference to the appeal, appeal may theory and directed law. injunction jurisdiction of the trial court is to be explicit provisions free prohibition appeal, the same as those contrary, put the statute under right between from the order matters appellate the case to judgment arrested is without war- court. with the to purpose being the of the lawful question. this tribunal’s is is an extraor appear The court be* will this extraordinary appellees that the rea an erroneous appear appeal upon placed upon to maintain given appeal pre court with exercise its exercising as before be enter erroneous our appellees interfere lifts any pos rest must be The proceed time, it right a court judicial and ex- conflict to one sought that a great juris judg Hon, atti- pre The this dis are, out ref be to REPORTER 244 SOUTHWESTERN
10G6 clusively the state recites that “hereby action this, petition, pe- do titioners’ own inferior tribunal to the confines file their jurisdiction. pro- its lawful otherwise.” This Only ap- ceeding joined should it event be made to instituted nqt *3 pear peal, that, pending particular by Attorney any county us the or General or dis- attorney the is trict trial court to issue of the state of Texas. dissolve, appeal duly some modify,’ per character or of order said was upon fected, hearing or act otherwise the al- and in order the thereof it was ready consideration, by court, this, now before this court for deemed advisable on account questions public we be of important would warranted to un- the involved expressions opinions to control the conduct of dertake through that court certain found the in prohibi- Supreme the of medium writ of in the Court the cases of Paul .the any Marrast, Waples contingency, tion. In the event K. of such et al. v. E. 108 Tex. would, course, protecting zealously Koy 1917A,253, we of act and ex- 184 S. W. L. A.R. peditiously Schneider, 479, 221 in v. Tex. 218 exclusive exer- 110 bearing S. W. belongs upon upon questions, of cise which to us injunction summary disposition and to hasten the feature and we as require complete appeal would to ance ment full said as law observ- this and acquiescence courts, judg- by by exigencies in as whatever as well situation, upon question be rendered us the issue submit certified Supreme 'the to the involves. Court what we considered the controlling issue, The motion is overruled. issue in the case. That as Supreme by us, submitted to the Court Granting Temporary On from Order substantially appears as to whether or not it Injunction. allegations petition in its re chapter 88, lation to section 9 of Acts of the VAUGHAN, is an an J. This Legislature, appellees 36th that disclosed injunction a allegations legal capacity n atthe their enjoining maintain appellees, instance Supreme the suit. The answer secretary, restraining appellant S. L. questions appellees being to the “that so certified to the any effect manner the as the from in possessed legal were not appellant Earle B. capacity party to institute and or maintain for of the Democratic the office nominee and, therefore, suit, this and the Senator, district court each States judge of the district court of Navar different and all the official ro any manner, without were to act counties the state same,” effectively disposes on or rectly indirectly, considering hear necessity any of the issue which of a must con such certification disposition appeal. placing trol the of this and from the name of disposing candidate, nominee or certified as court, Supreme any compre- otherwise, upon Court has or all of such official hensively legal phases permitting discussed and from the same to be involved, done, furnishing any relations renders it and from unneces- of- election sary indulge prolonged any for this court a ficer or clerk said official ballots with making disposi- thereon, discussion of ensuing final for the appeal. general election, tion of the etc. Accordingly, unnecessary it is for to in- The suit in district court us dulge any any further discussion of fea- name of the state of Texas on relation Short, King, McGhee, ture of the case. We rest our C. E. of citizens, C. and L. P. The . petition predicated it up statement that above etc is Su- preme ly comprehensive- Laws, regular Court’s treatment on section c. General ses legal Legislature (Vernon’s reveals the for reasons the conclusion sion of the 36th court, merely reached and we 3174¼b) refer St. Civ. “as well as opinion, binding upon per under and mitting leged of all virtue other laws reflecting by it, but Briefly the views stated, held the same.” it is al opinion refer to the Mayfield, rendered therein that Earle B. the nominee of the essential matters. Court for a full discussion of all party the Democratic for the office of Senator, his has forfeited By faqt reason did not to have his name official legal right bring and maintain ensuing election, by ballot in the rea suit, judgment of the court below son of the fact that he has committed acts injunction reversed, granting the writ of chapter in violation of the Acts of things in all and said writ dissolved and held Legislature, in connection 36th with cam naught. for expenditures paign campaign for nom the office party ination the Democratic Order for Writ of Prohibition. Issuance petition prays of United States Senator. The Whereas, PER it has been leave to information in the na CURIAM. file the that; judicially known to this the name of the ture n n v. STATE Tex.) 10C7 STAPLES- (244 !.W.) pending rehearing court on the above motion for Seventy-Seventh judicial M. district court of numbered and the Hon. entitled judge district Blackmon, judge Texas and the thereof seeks of the district identical, Seventy-Seventh judicial issued, any which reason orders said court a certain cause filed attempted issued, involving 1922, styled day October, to be “the State enjoin ing enjoined, with, Staples Kennedy do- et al. from Earle B. et al. v. Texas rel. 1#. sought attempted the acts or acts al.” et has clearly put an constitute interference writ of into force and effect infringement juris- upon, injunction restraining from cer- L.S. diction tifying this cause: to the various Therefore, protecting, said Earle *4 preserving enforcing the as Democratic nominee the office court, judge Blackmon, this said M. the A. restrain- States ing from also Senator court, hereby ordered, said manded, district com- from said election boards required and, Staples, forthwith to vacate from certification the said S. D. and set by effect, attempting aside order entered heretofore causing from to cause or day 1922, October, him the 28th on the be of the said B. Earle Kennedy ease “State any of Texas rel. on official ballot to be used al.,” restraining v. 1922, et 7, said S. L. general at the on November election Staples and all other defendants in said tem- from election said porary injunction, (the distributing causing A. M. he Hon. or bal- to election officers Blackmon, judge court) May- said is or- bearing district B. of said Earle lots the name dered and directed to un- abstain and desist Sen- field candidate for United as a States disposition til after the final used, of this case etc., ator to be to be held November at said entering any this joining any order pending en- fur- defendants in upon cause said ther said said action of district any doing act or acts injunction; said order, which he is herein directed to whereas, vacate And it is manifest that the sub- (cid:127) and set aside. ject-matter, upon which said district The clerk this court is ordered jurisdic- attempted order rected forthwith to issue and transmit for tion, said at time of the proper prohibition, service writ of condi- continuously order, at and is this time required, accompanied tioned as above filing of said suit in the date copy a certified of this order. Seventy-Seventh ju- said district court of has dicial district of until now been Texas Proceedings Contempt. On exclusively court, in this for the reason that subject-matter upon which said district PER Staples CURIAM. To D.S. Seventy-Seventh judicial court of the Keeling, district A. Residents of Travis Coun- attempted, attempting, ty, of to exercise has Texas Whereas, by proper proceedings Texas: equity jurisdiction, its is the day filed 1922, October, in this on court “Motion the 30th Staples the said D. and other the styled restrain upon appellant for order cause, appel- said who defendants Keeling, W. A. pending instant lees cause this why before they adjudged show cause should not be court, respectively certifying and re- contempt to be in of the honorable Court ceiving certification said Appeals supreme judicial for the Fifth B. as candidate for Earle punished therefor”; district of Texas and Senate, causing Whereas, above-styled and numbered pending cause the 11th official has been election ballots this court since 7, 1922, day October, 1922, to be identical the as aforesaid on November used which is the on an prosecuted in, by appellants issue involved and constitutes from an order of subject-matter of, pending the district county, the cause now court of Navarro Tex. (or judge rehearing motion court) be- said en- court, pending tered in the this which has not been final- cause fore then in said court ly court; day disposed October, 1922, on the 3d restrains which order whereas, now, Staples, And since exclu- said S. D. courts, complete juris- pending hearing all other holds final sive of or said cause court, involved in the further pending diction said orders as well as appeal, of said any manner, directly certify- A. M. Blackmon virtue of in ing indirectly, said Hon. appeal or any court in this notwith- or the official standing cause, (said said the fact that various counties of boards be- provided ing Hon. A. M. Blackmon issued said for in article Stat- Revised brought upon 1911), any temporary injunction, is re- utes or to or all of the members' parties plaintiff, agents, any boards, of different lation the sub- pending ject-matter appellant cause before this name of Earle as the’ 1068 244 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER par- required, person, candidate of the Democratic nominee rected and each in ty (of Texas) etc., otherwise, was and before the honorable Court continued in 10, 1922, court, supreme judicial effect October Civil date for the Fifth on to this district of notice Texas o’clock a. m. Mon- on day, 6, 1922, you November at which time October, day cause, And that then you : on and there show if Supreme you have, why you this court certified Texas certain of or Court either of should not be th^ questions adjudged contempt stated in certifi- to be in of this court and punished cate of this of which certificate this therefor manner form provided knowledge, court hath and that answers law. mandate, hereby The clerk of this court is directed required proper precept giv- so were returned into certified ing order, accompanied by thereafter on due notice of this October Judgment properly copy date said in was entered this court certified thereof to be served immediately Keeling thereafter said W. and S. L. pellee King person, required by mo- each O. filed in this cause his law. rehearing, pend- motion is now of, undisposed in this court you, Staples, pur- And that L.S. porting to in viola- act *5 provisions and the terms of said order STAPLES, Secretary et al. v. STATE 1922, 3, October of said of Octo- and (No. 8968.) rel. EUBANKS et al. 10, 1922, October, day did, on ber 1922, 28th (Court of Civil of Texas. Dallas. attempt certify, certify, or to each 4, Rehearing Nov. 1922. Denied and all of said official boards and the mem- 5, 1922.) Nov. agents thereof, and name Earle bers &wkey;>34 Quo as such candidate nominee and 1. warranto more with no —Citizen otherwise, you, may interest than other L. citizens insti- the said S. Sta- quo right tute warranto to test ples, did then file or cause to be filed candidate to have name on ballots. Telegraph Company Union the Western Leg. 88, (1919) Under Acts 36th 9§ c. Tex., telegraph companies other (Vernon’s Ann. art. Civ. St. telegrams boards, addressed to such official may 3174%b), proceed- citizen instituté some or members each of ing quo warranto of a to test certification, boards, containing candidate claimed to have violated Vernon’s instruct, did or cause Sayles’ then there 1914, Ann. Civ. St. arts. 3174k to instructed, telegraph 3174vv, limiting and did expendi- cause said be companies disbursements and tures in behalf of a to transmit and to such candidate for the United deliver primary elections, by causing States Senate at such members of such boards attorney prosecuting bring action certificates, messages telegrams n quo warranto on the relation of such citizen. you, And further the said S. L. Sta- did, acting <&wkey;3— secretary Injunction ples, quo proceed- con- 2. In warranto things to test candidate's have name with the matters and above nection ballots, grant printed on court authorized to forth, days 27th 28th of Oc- set injunction. tober, and receive consult with seek quo proceeding, test Attorney Keeling, from W. A. Texas, General Corrupt candidate claimed to have violated encouragement advice Act, to have name on under Practices acts and conduct in violation of the aforesaid Leg. (Vernon’s (1919>)e. § Acts 36th Civ. St. jurisdiction of this 3174%b), Supp. art. the court that, days on And 28th temporary injunction issue a was authorized to October, 1922, you, Keeling, restraining tion board from A.W. elec- of state and the causing wrongfully unlawfully advise, the candidate’s en- did courage, printed though ballots, on cause, or contribute to remedy specified by such statute is war- permit the said S. do and each ranto, since the court the exercise of its wrongful aforesaid and unlaw- and ful enjoin equity powers may any unwarranted in- acts, all for the with the terference with the under aof with, hinder, delay, to interfere tent thwart Const, 8.§ orderly administration the due &wkey;>80 may enjoined Injunction 3. —Officers justice cause; all of which is made of to certifying print- candidate’s motion filed ed where candidate not entitled duly sworn on October herein thereto. attorneys Nickels, one rec- and Luther of state members above-styled ord numbered cause: be- printed name of a candidate to be the election entitled to , Therefore, you, the said S. L. ballots, where such candidate Keeling, hereby' you, the said W. on ballots. Digests (2^>For Key-Numbered in all topic eases KEY-NUMBER Indexes see