Brown v. Reese
| Decision Date | 04 February 1887 |
| Citation | 3 S.W. 292 |
| Parties | BROWN and others <I>v.</I> REESE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
B. D. Doshied and Kirven, Gardner & Etheridge, for appellants. Geo. P. Finlay and Forster Rose, for appellee.
This suit was originally instituted in the district court of Leon county, by a petition for a mandamus, to compel appellants, as members of the commissioners' court of that county, to cause a warrant to issue in favor of appellee for the payment of a school voucher issued to him, in 1874, by the superintendent of public schools of the county. It was alleged that the claim was audited and allowed by the commissioners' court of Leon county on the thirteenth day of August, 1883, by virtue of the act of April 2, 1883, (Laws 18th Leg. 41.) Judgment was rendered in the court below awarding the writ of mandamus as prayed for, and defendants have appealed, and assigned the following error, in substance: That the judgment is unsupported by the evidence, because the voucher and the indorsement thereon are no proof that the commissioners' court allowed the claim as alleged. There is no evidence in the record of any entry upon the minutes of the commissioners' court in reference to this voucher. The warrant is signed by the school superintendent, and appears to be in regular form. It is indorsed as follows:
The Revised Statutes provide that the proceedings of the commissioners' court shall be recorded by the clerk in a suitable book kept for the purpose, and shall be read over and signed by the county judge, or the member of the court presiding, at the end of each term, and attested by the clerk. Rev. St. art. 1527. The best evidence of a judgment of that court, therefore, is either the record itself or a certified copy, as provided for by the statute, under the hand and seal of the clerk. The statement of facts shows that neither was produced on the trial in the court below. It also appears that no evidence of the allowance of the claim was offered, except the indorsement upon it which has been hereinbefore set out. Now, the question arises, is this proof of the fact that the court audited and allowed the claim? We think not. We have found nothing in the statute providing for any indorsement upon a voucher of this character by any officer. It is quite clear that the county judge could not have given a certified copy of the record if one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill County v. Colonial Trust Co.
...court, same would not be a binding or valid obligation against the county. Our Supreme Court, in the early case of Brown v. Reese, 67 Tex. 318, 3 S. W. 292, held that a warrant signed by the county judge was not enforceable unless same had been approved and ordered issued by the commissione......
-
Hurley v. Camp
...158; De Poyster v. Baker, 89 Tex. 155, 34 S. W. 106; Sansom v. Mercer, 68 Tex. 488, 5 S. W. 62, 2 Am. St. Rep. 505; Brown v. Reese; 67 Tex. 318, 3 S. W. 292; Ewing v. Cohen, 63 Tex. 483; Bledsoe v. Railway, 40 Tex. 557; Commissioner v. Smith, 5 Tex. We come now to consider appellees' cross-......
-
Board of School Trustees v. Woodrow I. School Dist.
...not as it recites, but was conditional—conditioned upon certain terms of payment. Article 2349, Revised Civil Statutes; Brown et al. v. Reese, 67 Tex. 318, 3 S.W. 292; Gano et al. v. Palo Pinto County, 71 Tex. 99, 8 S.W. 634; Wagner et al. v. Porter (Tex.Civ. App.) 56 S.W. 560; Fayette Coun......
-
Colonial Trust Co. v. Hill County, 1190-5529.
...not as it recites, but was conditional —conditioned upon certain terms of payment. Article 2349, Revised Civil Statutes; Brown et al. v. Reese, 67 Tex. 318, 3 S. W. 292; Gano et al. v. Palo Pinto County, 71 Tex. 99, 8 S. W. 634; Wagner et al. v. Porter (Tex. Civ. App.) 56 S. W. 560; Fayette......