Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

407 S.W.2d 520

Docket No. 16807.

Bailey v. Clark

Charles BAILEY, Appellant, v. Raymond CLARK, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 10, 1966.

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1966-10-10

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 2002

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1966-10-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*521 L. J. Varnell, Jr., Mineral Wells, for appellant.

¶2Morgan, Gambill & Owen and Cecil A. Morgan, Fort Worth, for appellee.

¶3

OPINION

¶4RENFRO, Justice.

¶5In a primary election contest Raymond Clark was adjudged to be the Democratic nominee for the office of County Commissioner, Precinct No. 2 of Parker County.

¶6The contestor, Charles Bailey, appealed.

¶7Appellee Clark filed a motion praying for dismissal of the appeal for the reason the appellant did not timely give notice of appeal and file an appeal bond in compliance with Article 13.30 of V.A.C.S., Election Code.

¶8More than five days had elapsed before appellant gave notice of appeal and filed an appeal bond.

¶9Compliance with the statute (Article 13.30) is necessary to give this court jurisdiction.

¶10Appellee's motion is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶11Dismissed.

¶12

CONCURRING OPINION

¶13MASSEY, Chief Justice.

¶14I am not satisfied of the propriety of dismissal of the appeal on the ground stated in the opinion.

¶15However, since absentee voting will begin October 19, 1966, it is obvious that the time within which the appeal could be considered is insufficient for a final determination on the merits. In view thereof it is my opinion that the appeal should be dismissed as moot.

/407/sw2d/520 · .json · Public domain