TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Turner v. Cotton, County Judge

Ernest Turner v. C.W. Cotton, County Judge.

Turner v. Cotton, Cnty. Judge, 57 S.W. 35 (Tex. 1900)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 21, 1900
Docket
No. 914.
Judges
Gaines
Citations
57 S.W. 3593 Tex. 5591900 Tex. LEXIS 182
Headnotes
Supreme Court — Jurisdiction—Mandamus—County Judge. The Supreme Court is without jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus against a county judge, he not being an officer ofi the State government within the meaning of article 946, Revised Statutes. Following Travis County v. Jourdan, 91 Texas, 217. (P. 559.)
Summary
Original application for writ of mandamus against respondent as County Judge. Respondent C. W. Cotton having considered himself disqualified to act in matters connected with administration upon the estate of a decedent, by reason of certain proceedings in which he had formerely acted as counsel, the application sought to require him to act therein, denying that he was in fact so disqualified.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gaines

GAINES, Chief Justice.

This is a petition for the writ of mandamus to the County Judge of Hamilton County. Article 946 of the Revised Statutes provides that this court may issue writs of "mandamus against any district judge or officer of the State Government, except the Governor of the State.” In Travis County v. Jourdan, 91 Texas, 217 , is was held that county officers, though officers of the State in a certain sense, are not "officers of the State Government” within the meaning of the provision quoted. The writ in that case was sought against a county treasurer. If the county treasurer be not an "officer of the State Government” in the sense of those terms as used in the statute, neither is a county judge. It follows that we are without the power to issue the writ prayed for in this case, and therefore the petition is dismissed.

Petition for mandamus dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1913: 11930: 11944: 219132026peak 1944 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cocke v. Smith179 S.W.2d 958 (Tex. 1944)
  2. Cocke v. Smith179 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. 1944)
  3. Lafield v. Maryland Casualty Co.33 S.W.2d 187 (Tex. 1930)
  4. Conroy v. Hallowell144 N.W. 895 (Neb. 1913) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Cocke v. Smith179 S.W.2d 958 (Tex. 1944)
  2. Cocke v. Smith179 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. 1944)
  3. Lafield v. Maryland Casualty Co.33 S.W.2d 187 (Tex. 1930)
  4. Conroy v. Hallowell144 N.W. 895 (Neb. 1913) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Travis Cnty. v. Jourdan, 42 S.W. 543 (Tex. 1897) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list