Ault v. Hill County
| Decision Date | 03 March 1909 |
| Parties | AULT v. HILL COUNTY. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by T. H. Ault against Hill County. A judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
For prior report, see 111 S. W. 425.
Vaughan & Hart, for plaintiff in error. Morrow & Smithdeal, for defendant in error.
This was an action by plaintiff in error against the county for damages for breach of a contract between them for the construction by Ault of certain improvements upon the courthouse of the county. One of the defenses was that the contract was void because it attempted to create a debt against the county without provision made to pay the interest and sinking fund, as required by section 5 of article 11 of the Constitution.
It appeared at the trial that the contract was concluded November 24, 1906, between Ault and the commissioners' court, as then composed, and that it was repudiated by the other commissioners elected in that year. No levy of a tax was made to provide a special fund to pay the amount agreed to be paid for the improvements; the commissioners who made the contract intending to pay it out of the current revenues. Had the money been on hand, or had the prospect of collecting it out of the taxes legitimately levied for general county purposes been such as to justify a reasonable expectation that it would be on hand, to meet the payments on the contract as they fell due, we should have a question very different from that which is presented by the facts. McNeal v. Waco, 89 Tex. 83, 33 S. W. 322. It is established by the findings of the Court of Civil Appeals that the 25-cent rate, lawfully levied for general county purposes, was and for years had been insufficient to meet the ordinary current expenses of county government. To meet this situation the commissioners' court for several years had been in the habit of levying and collecting a special tax for what was called the "improvement fund," with no improvement in contemplation, and of transferring the moneys so raised to the general fund. In the language of the Court of Civil Appeals: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decker v. Diemer
... ... County courts have no implied power to levy taxes. The power ... must be expressly given by statute, and ... erroneous. State v. Freeholders, 29 A. 332; Ault ... v. Hill County, 116 S.W. 359; Ault v. Hill ... County, 111 S.W. 426; Iron Co. v. Hart, ... ...
-
City of Ft. Worth v. Reynolds
...W. 791; Rogers National Bank v. Marion County, 181 S. W. 884; City of Austin v. McCall, 95 Tex. 565, 576, 68 S. W. 791; Ault v. Hill County, 102 Tex. 335, 116 S. W. 359; Berlin Iron-Bridge Co. v. City of San Antonio, 50 S. W. 408. But in this particular case, and as presented, we are of opi......
-
Carroll v. Williams
...sources, such, for example, as penalties from railway companies for failure to repair crossings. Article 1438, § 2. See Ault v. Hill County, 102 Tex. 335, 116 S. W. 359; Id. (Civ. App.) 111 S. W. 425; Jefferson Iron Co. v. Hart, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 525, 45 S. W. 321; Petty v. McReynolds (Civ.......
-
Toole v. First Nat. Bank
...W. 1058; Biddle v. City of Terrell, 82 Tex. 336, 18 S. W. 691; Edwards County v. Jennings, 89 Tex. 619, 35 S. W. 1053; Ault v. Hill County, 102 Tex. 336, 116 S. W. 359; City of Tyler v. Building & Loan Co. (Civ. App.) 82 S. W. 1066; Peck-Smead Co. v. City of Sherman, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 210, ......