Amstater v. Andreas
Decision Date | 27 October 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 5049,5049 |
Parties | J. M. AMSTATER et al., Appellants, v. Vincent ANDREAS and Henry Hicks, Appellees. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Potash, Cameron, Potash & Bernat, Travis White, City Atty., H. E. Brockmoller, Asst. City Atty., El. Paso, for appellants.
Cunningham & Malone, El Paso, for appellees.
This is a suit to determine the validity of a proposed bond issue of the City of El Paso. The purpose of the proposed bonds is to provide off-street parking facilities in the downtown business district of the city. By ordinance the city created Improvement District No. 3 and the bonds were approved by a vote of a majority of the taxpaying residents of that district who pay taxes on property situated in the district. The proposed bonds are to be paid from taxes on property in the district only.
The suit was filed by appellants and other taxpayers was favor issuance of the bonds against the city of El Paso, its Mayor and Aldermen. The relief sought was a judgment declaring the bonds valid and legal obligations against the real and personal property in the created Improvement District No. 3. In order to avoid any question of collusion the defendants impleaded Henry Hicks and Vincent Andreas, two taxpayers who own property in the district who are in the business of parking motor vehicles for hire, and who are violently opposed to the issuance of the bonds. Trial was to the court without a jury. The court held the bonds invalid, stating in the judgment that the court was of the opinion that there was no express authority or implied authority to the city of El Paso to issue the off-street parking bonds, and that it was the judgment of the court that the bonds were invalid as being issued in excess of the authority invested in the city of El Paso to issue bonds. The principal contention raised by this appeal is that the court erred in holding that the city lacked authority to issue the bonds.
The law in this state seems to be well settled that a home rule municipal corporation such as the City of El Paso may exercise such powers and only such powers as are expressly granted to it in its charter or such implied powers as are incident to the powers granted, or those essential and necessary to make effective the objects and purposes of the corporation. Davis v. City of Taylor, 123 Tex. 39, 67 S.W.2d 1033; Anderson v. City of San Antonio, 123 Tex. 163, 67 S.W.2d 1036.
As conferring authority to isse the bonds in question appellants rely on Sections 69 and 122 of the city charter, and Art. 1175 of the Revised Civil Statutes. This Article of the Revised Civil Statutes provides that home rule cities shall have full powers of local self government, and enumerates certain specific powers, among others
(Emphasis ours.)
also
We think this statute has no application. It is no way relates to the issuance of bonds, but deals with the general powers of local self-government by home rule cities. This statute in its entirety was incorporated in the charter of the city of El Paso by amendment passed February 21, 1929. However, the amendment was of Section 70 of the charter, which relates to the general powers of local government, and in no way refers to the issuance of bonds. Therefore we think the amendment has no application to the question here presented.
The question before us is not whether the city has power to purchase and maintain off-street parking lots, but whether it has power to issue the bonds in question for this purpose. No statutory authority other than Art. 1175 has been cited, and we have found none authorizing home rule cities to issue bonds for off-street parking. We are therefore driven to the charter in search of such authority. Appellants earnestly insist that Sections 69 and 122 of the charter confer such authority on the city. These sections are here reproduced:
The first question that presents itself is whether off-street parking lots constitute permanent public improvements for which the city is expressly authorized to issue bonds by the charter sections quoted. In Parr v. Ladd, 323 Mich. 592, 36 N.W.2d 157, 159, 8 A.L.R.2d 357, a statute was amended so as to provide that the term 'public improvements' should include automobile parking facilities, Pub.Acts 1933, No. 94, § 10, Pub.Acts 1946, 1 St.Ex.Sess., No. 23. However, the constitutional provision under which this statute was enacted was Article 8, Section 23:
"Any city or village may acquire, own, establish and maintain, either within or without its corporate limits, parks, boulevards, cemeteries, hospitals, almshouses and all works which involve the public health or safety." (Emphasis ours.)
The court said:
'It matters not whether such parking facilities be considered a public utility within the meaning of article 8, § 23, or an internal improvement under article 10, § 14, of the Constitution.'
In City of Whittier v. Dixon, 24 Cal.2d 664, 151 P.2d 5, 7, 153 A.L.R. 956 the contention was made that public parking places are not public improvements. In disposing of this contention the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zachry v. City of San Antonio, 13031
...recreational facilities of any nature' was adequate authority for the city to provide an underground parking facility. Amstater v. Andreas, Tax.Civ.App., 273 S.W.2d 95, 99, presented an analogous situation. The authority of the City of El Paso to issue bonds for off-street parking facilitie......
-
Barnett v. City of Plainview
...granted, or those essential and necessary to make effective the objectives and purposes of the city. Amstater v. Andreas, 273 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The Charter and ordinances expressly grant the City the power to appoint the municipal court recorder ......
-
Moore v. City of Corpus Christi
...with the statutory requirement where the proposition specified only a maximum rate of interest. Amstater v. Andreas, 273 S.W.2d 95 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Cameron v. City of Waco, 8 S.W.2d 249, 254 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1928, no In deciding whether a statute is mandat......
-
Weatherred v. Kiker, 7145
...we must assume the points were waived. Kelley et ux. v. City of Austin, Tex.Civ.App., 268 S.W.2d 773 (N.W.H.); Amstater et al. v. Andreas, Tex.Civ.App., 273 S.W.2d 95 (N.R.E.); Saldana v. Garcia, 155 Tex. 242, 285 S.W.2d 197 (Supreme Court); Crowell-Gifford Furniture Company v. Cloutman, Te......