Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ERNEST TURNER v. C.W. COTTON, COUNTY JUDGE.

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 of the State government within the meaning of article 946, Revised Statutes. Following Travis County v. Jourdan, 91 Tex. 217. (P. 559.)

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 Tex. 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

TURNER v. COTTON, COUNTY JUDGE
(May 21, 1900)