*1 Here, again, we hardly undue. be said could statements light truth or throws no on the which a record are faced falsity grantor that the statements defendant’s plaintiffs stealing cattle, must be held to and the boys his were proving the statements their burden failed to meet evidence of undue influence. false and were therefore were probative force is no evidence there conclude that We Burgess Sylvester, 143 Texas support jury verdict. “A will executed this court said: solemn mentally capable required law the formalities under suspicion executing not be set aside bare it should applies wrongdoing beneficiary.” part rule on the of a same Besteiro, supra. Besteiro In our cancel a deed. in a suit to jury supported by in this case verdict of the suspicion. than more Appeals judgment of the Court of Civil is reversed judgment of the trial court is affirmed. July 21,

Opinion delivered Taylor H. W. et al v. et al Holland Howard Joe Decided July No. A-4783. 219) (270 Series S.W. 2d *2 Jr1., Wilder, Beaumont, Wilder & Berlin H. and Gaston petitioners. for Adams, Beaumont, respondents. T. for

Gilbert Mr. Justice Court. Smith delivered Execu- Democratic the Jefferson On June representation from adopted a motion that Committee tive county based precinct convention be convention to delegate precinct convention to proportion from the twenty-five major frac- county for each votes convention precinct candi- for the Democratic in each such tion thereof cast voting Democratic ticket in date for voters Governor representation from general also election last upon the county based to the state convention be convention delegate proportion from the convention of one major fraction hundred state for each three votes convention Democratic thereof for the candidate cast voting the Democratic voters Governor general ticket in the election. last Holland, individually 15, 1954, petitioners,

On June Joe W. *3 County capacity a Demo- and in his member of the Jefferson Pre- cratic and of Executive Committee as Precinct Chairman County, Texas, and Mrs. cinct 20 of Jefferson Earl Robertson No. Zoller, qualified of filed this suit Emilie voters Precinct No. against County in the of Jefferson Jefferson District Court County Committee, and Democratic Executive and the Chairman injunction Committee, seeking an and individual members of the calculating praying respondents enjoined be from the the delegates number of next convention from Precinct the precincts County, Texas, 20 and all in Jefferson based only on ballots on Democratic of the ballot in the cast the side general last the election which Governor Allan Shivers was candidate, praying computation and successful further that such upon and Demo- calculation be based the total votes of both the Republican columns cratic and Allan in the last Shivers general injunction The trial court denied the and that election. judgment Appeals, has been of affirmed the Court Civil petitioners justiciable concluded that have no

We have litigation and, therefore, subject of in the matter interest they this authority without to institute the suit in the trial were respondents an court court. The filed answer the trial petitioners an in the which it was admitted that the had interest controversy. petitioners now that such admission contend Ap present and of the failure to Civil deciding peals precludes point. court from this we this With agree. agreement petitioners parties oc cannot cupy of the public generally position must of the different from that probative force supported find of evidence. We no evidence any degree agreement which voluntary would warrant on part respondents. permitting of The error in prose- them to suit, error, cute apparent is fundamental on the face of the record, majority within dissenting both the opinions and Ramsey Dunlop, alleged they profound

Petitioners “have a faith and principles belief Party tenets of the Democratic personal County, and economic interest as citizens Texas, Party. Precinct No. in the welfare of the As citizens legal an proper Democrats interest in the party the affairs conduct and a to insist compliance by Party Democratic officers and functionaries applicable of Texas laws the State thereto. This suit is brought by plaintiffs Party members the Democratic capacities forth, above set for themselves and for oth- all similarly ers situated.” regarding suit involves a

This contest number of dele- gates qualified voting precinct voters of each in Jefferson County represent respective be entitled to shall elect their County precincts in the Democratic Convention held in to be county. said The members Democratic Executive good acted. questioned. Committee have Their faith has not been petitioners profound principles The fact that have a faith in the Party apart not set does them from the thousands of citizens in Jefferson like faith and belief. statutory authority, In the absence of have no *4 right legislature granted pe- to maintain this suit. has not authority titioners the act for or to themselves citizens County similarly in Jefferson situated. The no peculiar Staples State, 61, interest to themselves. v. 112 Texas 639; Cook, 245 205, 837; v. S.W. Yett 115 Texas 281 S.W. Dick- Strickland, 176, 1012; son v. 114 265 Texas Carter v. S.W. Tomlinson, 351, App., Civ. 220 Texas 2d reversed on other S.W. grounds, 7, petitioners, 149 Texas 227 S.W. 2d The fact that Holland, 20, Joe is Chairman of Precinct W. does not confer upon right prosecute right him the to this suit in his own or in representative capacity. a Cook, 205, 837, the case of Yett v. 115 Texas 281 S.W.

841, acceptation a the court said: “It is rule of universal that to any person in entitle to maintain an action it court must be subject justiciable shown that he has a interest in the matter litigation, right representative in own or in a either his ca-

437 * * * pacity, may jurisdictions, whatever be the rule in other relating action there can no that Texas an to elec- be doubt enforcement, involving ques- of law not tions or other matters expenditure public funds, cannot tions of taxation unlawful plaintiff only a is be maintained relator whose interest a public generally, statute that of the absence valid authorizing (Emphasis added.) suit.” See cited cases. party voluntary political A a Texas is free association parties operate citizens of state. if courts Such cannot every entertain the suit of member concludes he is who that disagreement Keith, v. with its decisions. 142 Texas Osborne 262, 198; Davis, 2d Hoffman Texas Tomlinson, Carter 2d See 227 S.W. special peculiar injury

Petitioners have shown them- to alleged They personal a selves. had that economic in- damages terest and $5,000.00. had been sustained sum of during argument admitted in Petitioners this court oral an abandonment such claim. Keith,

In the case of Osborne v. plaintiff, Keith, brought M. R. suit for himself paying a resident tax citizen for all paying similarly other tax citizens of that situated. Osborne, prayed injunction prevent defendant, suit an to receiving payment county, from a under adjudged contract legal equitable that Jefferson be owner aof described tract of court land. This held Keith was not bring holding authorized to suit. In so “This the court said: right recognizes paying a tax citizen maintain an to equity enjoin expand- public action in a court of officials from * * * ing public illegal. funds under a contract is void or vigilence of a citizen who takes that burden himself good government However, interest commended. is be procedure recognized being generally and, is drastic action, order to authorized citizen to maintain an such bring strictly must himself within the established rules. Gov- operate every ernments cannot if citizen who concludes public granted official has abused his discretion *5 bring ju- come public into court and such official’s acts under dicial review.” urge they special interest, that have a

Plaintiffs different residing Party from that of the Democratic in of members 438 precinct county

the and in that interpretation under their of the delegates statutes Precinct No. 20 would have 52 and convention county votes the convention county and the would have 170 delegates and convention convention, votes in the state whereas interpretation under the of the Executive Committee precinct only delegates the will have 35 and convention votes in county the county only delegates convention and the 110 convention votes in They the state convention. assert that this may unauthorized privilege deprive right reduction well them of the serving delegates. proof see in no We this special injury plaintiffs. to only the plaintiffs There are three may in the suit and it well be that all of them will be included in the list of 35 who will precinct be selected at the convention delegates county convention list of 110 the who will delegates be selected at the convention to serve as to the state possibility convention. they The will not be selected is a risk share in common with all precinct others in the county, respectively. and App., the Lyon, McDonald v. Texas Civ. history; Reynolds S.W. Cobb, writ Texas Civ. App., history. S.W. 2d no writ right of a citizen to maintain a suit of the nature here granted involved legislature. has never been Whether or public grant not it policy legislative would be a wise to it is a judicial question. not a Davis, See Hoffman v. 503, 100 S.W. question of whether this court is authorized to consider question right petitioners to maintain this suit in point application absence presenting same has defiinitely been settled adversely this court contention here in the Sharp, al, case of Meredith v. et 2d 172. For the of the Court of Civil Appeals see 256 case, this, as in was not raised in the trial Appeals. court or the requested Court of Civil This court petitioner respondent concerning to file additional briefs following questions: right (1) Meredith, petitioner, suit; (2) maintain the whether in the event it is concluded petitioner suit, Supreme has no to maintain the Question Court would 1, above, be authorized to consider point application absence of for writ of error. petitioner, response filed in request his brief court, substantially made the same contentions as the *6 present petitioners suit. This court after of the contentions following considering party, filed each wrote briefs opinion: Curiam Per interest, financially petitioner has no

“Under our view otherwise, authorize him to maintain this which would suit. 205, Cook, 837. The trial court v. Texas should Yett writ, deny than dismissed suit rather therefore same, practical is effect of two orders since but granting purpose would be served writ reform the stamped application Refused, judgment. is therefore No Error.” Reversible stated, unnecessary it

For the reasons to discuss the points presented. judgments trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals are reversed and the cause is dismissed. Due to the fact Precinct Conventions will be held July 24, 1954, permit on not time will consideration of a motion therefore, rehearing, to file such notice is denied. Rule Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Opinion July 23, delivered 1954. dissenting. Associate Justice Griffin agree I with the goes, far as it but add the would additional reason question at issue ais political Tomlinson, under v. Carter 2d 795. The seating distinction between a “contest” over the unseating given party of a functionary officer or dispute an da kind before us is without substance. The effect of Carter Tomlinson is make the statute largely here directory.

Opinion July delivered Carpenter Longuemare

John D. A. Charles Wesley E. et al Smith August 11,

No. A-4850. Decided (270 457) Series