Fowler v. State ex rel. George
Citations
- 68 Tex. 30
- 3 S.W. 255
- 1887 Tex. LEXIS 639
Syllabus
<p>1. Quo Warranto—District Attorney.—A proceeding by quo warranto may be filed by a district attorney pro tem. appointed during a term of court by the district judge on account of the non attendance of the district attorney. The authority of such an appointee to represent the State, after he has been recognized as a de facto officer, can not be questioned in a collateral proceeding.</p> <p>3. Pleading.—In a proceeding by quo warranto, to recover an office to which the relator claims to have been elected, an allegation that be Was a citizen of the county and entitled to the office, is, on general demurrer, a sufficient averment of his qualification to hold the office.</p> <p>3. Same.—In such a proceeding a statement in the information that the relator received a majority of the ballots of the qualified voters of the county, is sufficient, without setting forth the facts which constituted their qualifications. A more definite allegation would, however, be required, if the relator should claim that ballots had not been counted, on the ground that the persons casting them lacked some of the qualifications named in the statute, when in fact they possessed them all, and that thereby the relator lost his election.</p> <p>4. Election Laws.—The object of every popular election for office is to ascertain the will of the people as to who shall serve them. The laws enacted to secure this object, in so far as they require the election to be by ballot, the day of the election, and the places within designated precincts where the election shall be held, are mandatory. Other provisions prescribing the conduct of and return of an election are directory, and mere irregularities in their observance, which have not prevented the electors from exercising freely and fairly their right of suffrage, and from having their votes properly estimated for the candidates of their choice, must be treated as informalities which do not vitiate the election; provided, such' irregularities are not of
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “A workers’ compensation claimant is presumed to know the law, and mere ignorance of the one-year filing requirement will not constitute good cause for delay.”
- “[A] workers’ compensation claimant is presumed to know the law, and mere ignorance of the one-year filing requirement will not constitute good cause for delay.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Willie
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.