Skip to main content
· 1/13/1882

Flatan v. State ex rel. Edwards

Citations

  • 56 Tex. 93
  • 1882 Tex. LEXIS 2

Syllabus

<p>1. Statute construed — Officer.— The statute requiring a party elected to office to qualify within a prescribed period of time, will be construed as directory only in a case where, from reasons beyond his control, he cannot qualify within the time allowed; but such construction will not be given in a case of neglect or refusal to qualify.</p> <p>2. Fact case—Pleading.— See opinion for answer of respondent in a case of quo warranto to which a demurrer was erroneously sustained.</p> <p>3. Qualification of officer.—One elected to the office of sheriff who seeks an extension of the time provided by statute within which he shall qualify, by taking the oath of office and giving bond, must show some extraordinary reason why it should be granted.</p> <p>4, Appointment of sheriff by commissioners’ court.— If one elected to the office of sheriff neglects or refuses to give the bond required by the statute within the time prescribed by the statute, it is the duty of the county commissioners’ court for the county to declare the office vacant and to fill the vacancy by appointment.</p> <p>5. Constitutional law.—Art. 6, sec. 24 of the constitution, conferring on the judges of the district court power to remove officers therein named, refers only to persons who are officers in the full sense of that term, after they have been elected or appointed, and have qualified as required by law.</p> <p>6. Statute construed.— Art. 3400 of the Revised Statutes does not confer on judges of the district court exclusive jurisdiction to declare vacant an office to which one has been elected, when he has refused or neglected to qualify by taking the oath and executing the statutory bond.</p> <p>7. Office — Franchise.— Though in one sense an office is a franchise, the right to the same never vests until the person elected to have the same has fully qualified and has thereby become entitled to discharge the duties and receive the emoluments thereof.</p> <p>8. Public offices.— For all purposes of

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • referring to offense by new name in verdict director was not a fatal variance from charging instrument; despite the name change, “[f]or purposes of the charge made against the appellant, . . . the statute has remained, in essence, the same”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bonner, Stayton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.