Board of Permanent Road Com'Rs v. Johnson

Decision Date07 May 1921
Docket Number(No. 8646.)
Citation231 S.W. 859
PartiesBOARD OF PERMANENT ROAD COM'RS OF HUNT COUNTY et al. v. JOHNSON et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Hunt County; Geo. B. Hall, Judge.

Action by J. O. Johnson and others against the Board of Permanent Road Commissioners of Hunt County and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Judgment reversed, and injunction dissolved.

Clark & Sweeton, of Greenville, for appellants.

B. F. Crosby and M. B. Harrell, both of Greenville, for appellees.

HAMILTON, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment perpetually enjoining appellants from constructing a certain described paved road in Hunt county.

The board of permanent road commissioners of Hunt county was created under and exists by virtue of a special road law for Hunt county enacted by the Thirty-Third Legislature. It consists of the commissioners' court, the county auditor, and eight citizens, two selected from each of the four commissioners' precincts. Special Laws 33d Leg. p. 190, vol. 16, Laws of Texas. This board, under the provisions of the Hunt county road law, is given unlimited discretion in selecting, laying out, and constructing paved roads.

Appellees alleged substantially that the members of the board, in deliberate and exhaustive exercise of the discretion reposed in them by the provisions of the law, selected and decided to construct a road, designated as the "Jacobia route," which route, in the light of existing facts and conditions and as a matter of justice to the great majority of the citizens to be affected, sound and practical judgment dictated ought to be constructed. But, it was alleged, after the "Jacobia route" had been selected by the board, the state highway department refused to extend state and federal aid for the construction of the road, to augment the county's funds derived from bonds voted by the county, and that this circumstance induced the board to surrender its discretion to the state highway commission, and to yield to the arbitrary demands of the highway commission, which was done in adopting for construction the road the building of which was enjoined.

Appellants answered by general demurrer and general denial. The appeal is presented upon one assignment of error, which is as follows:

"The judgment entered herein is without evidence to support it, is contrary to the law, and is an unwarranted interference with the discretionary powers, duties, and responsibilities of the permanent road board of Hunt county. There is no evidence to show that the road board failed to exercise its own discretion. On the contrary, the undisputed evidence is that it has freely exercised its discretion, that it has chosen the more direct and cheaper route, and that, in doing so, it will save the people of Hunt county $146,000, besides working in harmony with the state highway department."

We sustain the view asserted by appellants. The record does not reveal in the board's action, purposes and conduct which constitute abuse of discretion in matters of this kind. There is no evidence whatever of bad faith or perversity, or of moral delinquency, actuating the board or any of its members, in finally receding from the tentative selection of the "Jacobia route," and ultimately adopting the "middle route," the construction of which appellees seek to enjoin.

The evidence reflects a long and insistent discussion between the board and the highway commission, throughout which the former strive to persuade the latter to acquiesce in supplying federal and state aid to the construction of the "Jacobia route," and throughout which the highway department insists that it would not accede to the proposal, but would withdraw a contribution of road funds amounting, according to the evidence, to $106,000. The evidence shows that the construction of the route finally adopted will cost $40,000 less than the "Jacobia route"; the former route being a shorter and more direct connection...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State ex rel. Kansas City v. State Highway Commission
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 13 Junio 1942
    ... ...           Writ ... modified and made permanent ...           William ... E. Kemp, Guy B. Park, ... Comm., ... 336 Mo. 985, 82 S.W.2d 105; Board of Commrs. v. State ... Highway Commrs., 176 Okla. 207, ... "take over" the bridge by the Centennial Road Law ... Laws of Missouri, 1923, p. 354 (as amended, Laws ... 216; ... Board of Permanent Road Commrs. v. Johnson, 231 S.W ... 859. (b) It is specifically held that the ... ...
  • State ex rel. State Highway Com'n v. Curtis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 13 Junio 1949
    ... ...           ... Alternative writ made permanent ...           ...          Original ... Garland, 190 Ill.App. 216, 96 N.E. 819; ... Board of Permanent Road Commissioners v. Johnson, ... 231 S.W ... ...
  • Austin v. Guaranty State Bank
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 29 Septiembre 1927
    ...v. Nalle, 85 Tex. 520, 549, 22 S. W. 668, 960; Kidder v. Hall, 113 Tex. 49, 55, 251 S. W. 497, 499; Board of Permanent Road Commissioners v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 231 S. W. 859, 860, 861; Grayson County v. Harrell (Tex. Civ. App.) 202 S. W. 160, 163 (writ refused); Stuckey v. Jones (Tex.......
  • Logan v. Matthews
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 2 Septiembre 1932
    ... ... 1929; Quisenberry v ... Mitchell, 292 S.W. 160; Board of Permanent Road ... Commissioners of Hunt County v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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