City of Austin v. Cahill
| Decision Date | 23 October 1905 |
| Citation | 89 S.W. 552 |
| Parties | CITY OF AUSTIN et al. v. CAHILL. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Appellants, on motion for rehearing, raise the question of the disqualification of Chief Justice EWING to sit in this case because he was of counsel in the case of City of Austin v. Nalle, 85 Tex. 520, 22 S. W. 668, 960. The parties to that suit not being the same, and the matters of dispute being different, we hold that Judge EWING is not disqualified from sitting in this case. King v. Sapp, 66 Tex. 519, 2 S. W. 573; Cullen v. Drane, 82 Tex. 484, 18 S. W. 590; Blackwell v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 76 S. W. 454; Taylor v. Williams, 26 Tex. 583; Glasscock v. Hughes, 55 Tex. 461; Slaven v. Wheeler, 58 Tex. 23, 26; Railway Co. v. Ryan, 44 Tex. 426, 429; Axtell's Ann. Const. of Tex. § 11, pp. 148, 152, 153; 17 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) pp. 739, 740.
The attorneys for appellants seem to misapprehend the court's attitude as to the minor questions considered in the opinion. The only questions decided by this court were the two certified by the Court of Civil Appeals, both of which were answered in the negative. The other questions discussed in the opinion of the Chief Justice were merely preliminary and collateral, and were considered solely as bearing on or illustrative of the question of necessary parties. Rosetti v. Lozano, 96 Tex. 59, 70 S. W. 204.
Justice MINOR desires it stated that, upon further consideration, in his opinion this court should abstain from any expression of its views upon the questions, incidentally passed upon in the original opinion, as to appellee's right of action to compel levies of taxes for the payment of his demands, but that in all other respects he concurs in the disposition made of this motion.
The motion is hereby overruled.
took no part in the decision of the question raised as to his disqualification.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Balli, 8187; Motion No. 16405.
... ... appraised; bearing in mind that the money is to be applied to the credit of the State and the City of Matamoros in conformity with what is set forth in the Colonization Law of this State. When this ... B. Langermann, General Land Office Austin, February, 1880." ... The trial court rendered judgment for the adverse claimants ... Lufkin v. City of Galveston, 63 Tex. 437; City of Austin v. Cahill, 99 Tex. 172, 88 S.W. 542; Id., 99 Tex. 172, 89 S. W. 552 ... The State contends ... ...
-
North Carolina Pub. Serv. Co v. Southern Power Co, (No, 392.)
...104, 110 Pac. 197, 20 Ann. Cas. 1109, in the case of Berkey v. Commissioners, citing City of Austin v. Cahill, 99 Tex. 172, 88 S. W. 542, 89 S. W. 552. This question was considered by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Attorney General v. Boston, 123 Mass. 460. In that case the court say......
-
Roseberry v. Norsworthy
...36 Cyc. 1103; Philadelphia Fire Ins. Co. v. Love, 101 Texas, 376, 108 S.W. 158, 810; Austin v. Cahill, 99 Texas, 172, 187, 88 S.W. 542, 89 S.W. 552; Gooden v. Lincoln Police Jury, 122 La. 755, 48 So. 196. A statute is not to be read as if open to construction as a matter of course. It is on......
-
State Ex Rel. Buckwalter v. City of Lakeland
...it to other purposes. We have also cited in several of our decisions the case of City of Austin v. Cahill, 99 Tex. 172, 88 S.W. 542, 89 S.W. 552. In that case it held that it was not necessary for all the city's bondholders to be before the court, because the city stood in the position of t......