Caruthers v. Harnett

• Decision Date: 10 December 1886
• Citation: 2 S.W. 523
• Parties: CARUTHERS v. HARNETT and others.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

2 S.W. 523

CARUTHERS v. HARNETT and others.

Supreme Court of Texas.

December 10, 1886.

Appeal from Presidio county.

Injunction by complainant to restrain defendants from requiring him to register county bonds, and to restrain them from removing him from office, etc. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appealed.

Hancock, Shelly, Hancock & Old, for appellant. Peeler, Maxey & Fisher, for appellees.

STAYTON, J.

This action was brought by I. B. Caruthers, county treasurer of Presidio county, against the acting county judge, who had been appointed to serve during the suspension of the county judge elect, under an application to remove him from office, and against the county commissioners, two of whom were acting under appointment, during the suspension of two of the commissioners-elect, against whom proceedings to remove them were also pending. The petition recites facts which led to a declaration by the county judge of Presidio county that the county-seat of the county, at an election held, had been removed from the town of Fort Davis to the town of Marfa, all of which he claimed was illegal, and alleged that Fort Davis was still the county-seat. He further alleged that the defendants, assuming to be members of the county commissioners' court, had issued bonds to pay for the erection of a courthouse and jail at Marfa, and that some of these bonds had been presented to him for registration, and that he had refused to register them, for reasons which he fully stated, and that the commissioners' court had entered an order requiring him to register them. He also averred that he feared and believed that the commissioners' court would seek to enforce their order against him, and would seek to remove him from the office of county treasurer on account of his refusal to register the bonds. He stated fully the grounds on which he claimed that the bonds were illegal. He also alleged that the defendants had removed the most of the county records from Fort Davis to Marfa, and that he still retained his office and books at Fort Davis, which he claimed to be the county-seat; but he alleged that he feared and believed that the defendants would seize the records of his office, and remove them to Marfa. He sought an injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding against him under their order requiring him to register the bonds, to restrain them from proceeding against him for the purpose of removing him from office, and to restrain them from interfering with or removing the records of his office to Marfa. He also asked that on the trial of the cause a mandatory writ issue requiring the defendants no longer to retain the county records at Marfa. The writ, as prayed for, was granted. The defendants filed exceptions to the petition, which were overruled, and the cause was then tried, and resulted in a judgment for the defendants, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

A motion is now filed to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that this court has no jurisdiction. If the district court has jurisdiction of any of the matters in reference to which relief is sought, then this court has jurisdiction; for the constitution confers upon this court appellate jurisdiction in civil cases of which the district courts have original or appellate jurisdiction. The district courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of injunction. There can be no doubt that a district court has power to issue an injunction to restrain the illegal seizure or use of the books and papers pertaining to any public office; and it would seem not only the right, but also the duty, of any public officer intrusted with the records, books, and papers of his office affecting his own right, as well as the public welfare, to protect them from an illegal seizure or use; and to do this, if necessary, he may ask the interposition of a court of equity. The relief sought by the appellant brings him within this rule, in so far as he asks that the defendants be enjoined from seizing and carrying away the records, books, and papers pertaining to his office of county treasurer. A district court has the power to issue an injunction to restrain the illegal expenditure of the funds of a county, or to restrain the illegal issue and delivery of the bonds of a county upon their faces evidencing a county...