City of Dallas v. Western Electric Co.
| Decision Date | 05 February 1892 |
| Citation | 18 S.W. 552 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY OF DALLAS <I>et al.</I> v. WESTERN ELECTRIC CO. |
Action by the Western Electric Company against the Queen City Electric Light & Power Company upon an account. A writ of garnishment was served upon the city of Dallas, and thereupon a bond executed by J. W. Johnson, Joseph P. Smith, and H. Pringle was given by the Queen City Company, conditioned to pay any judgment recovered against the city. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Reversed.
A. P. Wozencraft and M. Trice, for city. Crawford & Crawford, for other appellants. Wooten & Kimbrough, for appellee.
This was a garnishment suit against the city of Dallas, instituted by the Western Electric Company, plaintiff, in a suit for debt against the Queen City Electric Light & Power Company. The city answered, admitting an indebtedness, at the time it was served with writ, to the Queen City Electric Light & Power Company, but claimed that it was exempted from suit as a garnishee by virtue of the following provision in its charter: Another section of the charter reads as follows: The plaintiff asked judgment upon the admission of indebtedness in the answer of the garnishee, contending that the exemption claimed under its charter is unconstitutional. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and the judge, holding that said exemption was forbidden by the constitution, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
The following are the clauses of the constitution which are relied upon to defeat the charter: Article 3, § 56: "The legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, necessary local or special law, * * * regulating the practice or jurisdiction of, or changing the rules of evidence in, any judicial proceeding or inquiry before courts, justices of the peace, sheriffs, commissioners, arbitrators, or other tribunals, or providing or changing methods for the collection of debts, or the enforcing of judgments, or prescribing the effect of judicial sales of real estate; * * * and, in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no local or special law shall be enacted." If these provisions were the only ones found in the constitution relating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...130 Mo. 668, 32 S. W. 1139; Glover v. Meinrath, 133 Mo. 292, 34 S. W. 72; McMahon v. Pac. Ex., 132 Mo. 641, 34 S. W. 479; Dallas v. Elec. Co., 83 Tex. 243, 18 S. W. 552; 1 Lewis' Sutherland, Con. Stat. § 203; Murray v. Bd. Co. Commissioners, 81 Minn. 359, 84 N. W. 103, 51 L. R. A. 828, 83 A......
-
Brown v. State
...Mo. 668, 32 S. W. 1139; Glover v. Meinrath, 133 Mo. 292, 34 S. W. 72; McMahon v. Pac. Ex., 132 Mo. 641, 34 S. W. 479; Dallas v. Electric Co., 83 Tex. 243, 18 S. W. 552. After a careful review of these authorities we find many of them not at all bearing pertinently on the question under cons......
-
State v. Vincent
...is a local or special law, within the meaning of the Constitution. Clark v. Finley, 93 Tex. 171, 54 S. W. 343; City of Dallas v. Western Electric Co., 83 Tex. 243, 18 S. W. 552; Altgelt v. Gutzeit (Sup.) 201 S. W. 400; Hall v. Bell County, 138 S. W. 178; Id., 105 Tex. 558, 153 S. W. 121; To......
-
City of Oak Cliff v. State
...art. 3, of the Constitution, were intended to operate on such subjects as are embraced alone by that section. City of Dallas v. Western Electric Co., 83 Tex. 243, 18 S. W. 552. The subject of incorporating of cities having more than 10,000 inhabitants, and granting and amending their charte......