District Trustees of School Dist. No. 1 v. Wimberly

Decision Date01 February 1893
Citation21 S.W. 49
PartiesDISTRICT TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 v. WIMBERLY, County Judge, et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from district court, Jeff Davis county; W. Kelso, Judge.

Action by H. M. Patterson, J. B. Shields, and W. Keesey, as district trustees of school district No. 1, against W. W. Wimberly, county judge, and others, for an injunction. From a judgment for defendants, dissolving the injunction, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by FISHER, C. J.:

Plaintiffs, H. M. Patterson, J. B. Shields, and W. Keesey, in their corporate capacity as district trustees of district No. 1, and county of Jeff Davis, state of Texas, brought this suit to restrain W. W. Wimberly, county judge of Jeff Davis county, and his successors in office, from apportioning to school district No. 2 the sum of $25.98, and all other available school funds to which district No. 1 would thereafter be entitled, as the pro rata of said funds for the children within scholastic age residing upon the A. S. Lewis survey. The school trustees of district No. 2, being parties in interest in their corporate capacity, were made parties defendant. Plaintiffs, in their petition, allege that for about two years prior to the 26th day of March, 1889, Jeff Davis county had been divided into two school districts. In pursuance of an expressed desire of a majority of the voters of the two districts, the commissioners' court, at a special term, on the 26th day of March, 1889, redistricted said county, and, by orders duly entered on the minutes of the court, created three school districts, defined them by boundaries, and numbered them 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and that on the 14th day of August, 1889, the court, without having obtained the consent of the voters of districts Nos. 1 and 2, and in violation of the law, changed the lines between the two districts so as to detach from district No. 1 the A. S. Lewis survey No. 6, and attach it to district No. 2. Defendant Wimberly recognized the change made by the court, and apportioned the pro rata of the school fund for the children residing on the Lewis survey to district No. 2. This survey is very populous, on account of the military post at Ft. Davis being located on it. It contains 640 acres of land, and the number of children residing on it, and enrolled in district No. 1, for the year 1889-90, was 27. At the time of commencing this suit there was about to be paid into the county treasury the sum of $774.90, available school fund for the county for the year 1889-90. Of this sum plaintiffs allege that $25.98 was due and should be apportioned to district No. 1 as the pro rata of said fund for 10 of the children residing on the Lewis survey, and not theretofore transferred to district No. 2 by defendant Wimberly, and that, unless restrained from so doing, Wimberly would apportion this sum to district No. 2, and would apportion all other school funds to which district No. 1 was entitled as the pro rata of the children within scholastic age residing on the Lewis survey. Defendants answered by general denial, and by special plea that the county was redistricted on the 26th of March, 1889, only for the purpose of giving the town of Valentine and surrounding country better school facilities; that the Lewis survey had prior to this time been in district No. 2; that the duty of designating the boundaries was by the court intrusted to one of the commissioners, a surveyor by profession, and that he availed himself of his superior knowledge of the boundary lines between the various tracts of land, and, with intent to deceive the court, changed the lines between districts Nos. 1 and 2, as they had formerly existed, and detached the Lewis survey from district No. 2, and attached it to district No. 1, and thereby deceived three of the commissioners; that on the 28th day of March, and before the adjournment of the term of court, an order was passed by the court to reconsider its action in designating the boundaries between districts Nos. 1 and 2, and on the 13th day of August, 1889, in pursuance of the order to reconsider, changed the line between districts Nos. 1 and 2 so as to include the Lewis survey in district No. 2, where...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Kelly v. Board of County Commissioners
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • October 3, 1916
    ... ... ERROR ... to the District Court, Big Horn County; HON. CHARLES E ... Justices, 3 Head (Tenn.) 583; District School Trs ... v. Wemberly, 21 S.W. 49, 2 Tex. Cir ... plaintiff brings error ... 1. The ... evidence tends to show that before the ... To ... illustrate, the directors or trustees of the corporation must ... be in session and ... ...
  • Eastland County v. Davisson
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 1926
    ...49 Tex. 556; Reast v. Donald, 84 Tex. 648, 19 S. W. 795; Davis v. Schaffner, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 121, 22 S. W. 822; District Trustees v. Wimberly, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 404, 21 S. W. 49; Barton v. Chrestman (Tex. Civ. App.) 275 S. W. In the case of Barton v. Chrestman the court says: "It is well se......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT