Bourgeois v. Mills
| Decision Date | 26 June 1883 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3895. |
| Citation | 60 Tex. 76 |
| Parties | LOUISA BOURGEOIS v. J. S. MILLS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Z. Hunt.
December 15, 1876, appellants brought this suit in the district court against appellee as road overseer to restrain and enjoin him from opening up a public road through their inclosed land, in obedience to an order of the county commissioners' court. They alleged that a commission of review had been appointed by the court to review a road and assess the damages; that they did review and locate a public road through the inclosed lands of appellants, and assessed no damages. This report was made to and adopted by the commissioners' court, and appellee was appointed overseer and directed to open up and work the road. It was also alleged that at the time the review was made appellants were prevented from appearing before them, on account of sickness; that the establishment of the proposed road would greatly injure them, in the sum of $1,000. A preliminary injunction was sought and obtained.
Appellee answered by general demurrer and general denial. Upon the hearing the court sustained the demurrer, and, appellants declining to amend, judgment was rendered dismissing the cause.
Good, Brown & Combs and John M. Stemmons, for appellant.
No briefs on file for appellee.
This is a suit in the district court to enjoin a road overseer from opening a public road through the inclosed lands of the appellants, in obedience to an order of the county commissioners' court. The county commissioners' court is provided for by the constitution, that is, it is a constitutional court, with such powers and jurisdiction over all county business as is conferred by the constitution or that might be conferred by law. The act to regulate the laying out, opening and classifying and working public roads, etc., approved July 29, 1876, confers upon the commissioners' court full power and jurisdiction over the subject of public roads. This is a special power or jurisdiction confided to that court, to be exercised according to its discretion. No provision is made in the act for reviewing its action with respect to that matter. No doubt, however, is entertained as to the power of the district court, through its equitable jurisdiction, to revise the exercise of that discretion, where it is clearly shown that it has been grossly abused; or to interfere and prevent an injury where it appears that the commissioners' court had transcended its authority, or was proceeding without authority of law. Floyd v. Turner, 23 Tex., 292;Duer v. Police Court, etc., 34 Tex., 283; Anderson County v. Kennedy, Texas Law Review, vol. 1, No. 14, p. 218.
In this case the petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Castleman
...or is not so grossly arbitrary as that, under principles unnecessary to discuss, it might be void and amount to no action. Bourgeois v. Mills, 60 Tex. 76. Since it is clear that the determination of the facts necessary for action by the commissioners' court is not made dependent on state le......
-
J. R. Phillips Inv. Co. v. Road Dist. No. 18
...Court. It has been held that the supervisory control of the District Court may be exercised through its equitable, jurisdiction. Burgeois v. Mills, 60 Tex. 76; McIntire v. Lucker, 77 Tex. 259, 13 S. W. 1027. When the equity powers of the District Court of Limestone County were invoked in th......
-
Wilmarth v. Reagan
...a few of these authorities, showing the extent of the jurisdiction of the district court under its equity powers. In the case of Bourgeois v. Mills, 60 Tex. 76, the Supreme Court "The act to regulate the laying out, opening, and classifying and working public roads, etc., approved July 29, ......
-
Grant v. Ammerman
...district court. Scott v. Graham, 156 Tex. 97, 292 S.W.2d 324 (1956); Haverbekken v. Hale, 109 Tex. 106, 204 S.W. 1162 (1918); Burgeois v. Miller, 60 Tex. 76 (1883); J. R. Phillips Investment Co. v. Road District No. 18 of Limestone County, 172 S.W.2d 707 (Tex.Civ.App.1943, writ ref.); Rodri......