City of Ballinger v. Boyd
| Citation | 173 S.W.2d 363 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 9400.,9400. |
| Parties | CITY OF BALLINGER v. BOYD. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Runnels County; O. L. Parish, Judge.
Proceedings by Homer Boyd against City of Ballinger to enjoin enforcement of municipal ordinance. From an order granting a temporary injunction, defendant appeals.
Order set aside and injunction dissolved.
Paul Petty, of Ballinger, for appellant.
Baker & Baker and R. E. Murphey, both of Coleman, for appellee.
This appeal is from an order granting a temporary injunction restraining appellant, the City of Ballinger, Texas, from enforcing its taxicab ordinance against appellee, Homer Boyd.
The ordinance was enacted under the provisions of Art. 1016, R.S.1925, appellant City having a population of less than 5,000. It requires a license and a fee therefor to operate a taxicab on the streets of appellant within the city limits. Appellant City owns a municipal airport (Bruce Field), located about four miles outside of or beyond its limits, and the ordinance prescribes not only the rates which may be charged within the city limits, but also the rates which a city licensed taxicab may charge passengers to and from Ballinger to Bruce Field. The ordinance regulates the use of the streets by taxicabs and the manner of operation of the taxicab business within the city limits, and prescribes a fine of not exceeding $100 for the violation of any of its provisions.
Appellee alleged that prior to and since the enactment of the ordinance he was and is now engaged in the transportation of passengers for hire by automobile from Ballinger to Bruce Field; that the ordinance is void because the City of Ballinger had no jurisdiction or authority over highways beyond its city limits, rendering that portion attempting to fix rates outside the city limits void; that the ordinance is void because it impairs his freedom or right of contract with respect to the rates charged outside of the city limits; and that it is void because unreasonable and impossible to comply with in several particulars, and discriminatory as to appellee.
The trial court granted the temporary injunction restraining appellant City only from fixing or enforcing rates for transportation between Ballinger and Bruce Field, or outside the city limits.
The ordinance is penal in nature, and the action is to enjoin the enforcement of a penal ordinance. Appellee neither alleged nor proved that the enforcement of the ordinance would constitute a direct invasion of any vested property. The trial court therefore erred in granting the temporary injunction under the settled rule stated and quoted by the Commission of Appeal in the recent case of Kemp Hotel Operating Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morales
...Antonio 1941, writ ref'd); Brazell v. Gault, 160 S.W.2d 540, 542 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1942, no writ); City of Ballinger v. Boyd, 173 S.W.2d 363, 364 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1943, no writ); Salinas v. Moore, 201 S.W.2d 68, 69 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1947, no writ); Pierce v. City of Step......
-
Flowers v. Woodruff
...last referred to the court cites as authority Ex parte Sterling, supra, and Box et al. v. Newsom, supra. In the City of Ballinger v. Boyd, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 363, 364, Boyd procured an injunction restraining the City from enforcing an ordinance regulating the operation of taxicabs in ......
-
City of Houston v. Houston Independent School Dist.
...see Ex Parte Sterling, (1932), 122 Tex. 108, 53 S.W.2d 294; State v. Ferguson, (1939), 133 Tex. 60, 125 S.W.2d 272; City of Ballinger v. Boyd, 173 S.W.2d 363, no writ hist.; State ex rel. Flowers v. Woodruff, (1947), 150 Tex.Cr.R. 295, 200 S.W.2d 178; Malone v. City of Houston, Tex.Civ.App.......
-
Summit Bank v. The Creative Cook, 04-86-00325-CV
...of a verdict by a jury. Williams v. Planters' & Mechanics' National Bank of Houston, 91 Tex. 651, 45 S.W. 690 (1898); City of Ballinger v. Boyd, 173 S.W.2d 363 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1943, no writ). The findings of fact and conclusions of law in the case at bar support the judgment Since the......