City of East Dallas v. State

• Decision Date: 26 March 1889
• Parties: CITY OF EAST DALLAS <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> STATE <I>ex rel.</I> PUTZ.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

11 S.W. 1030

CITY OF EAST DALLAS et al.

v. STATE ex rel. PUTZ.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 26, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Dallas county.

Coomes & Gano, for appellants. Evans & Gooch, for appellee.

GAINES, J.

This is a proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto, instituted in the name of the state of Texas upon the relation of Joseph Putz, to determine the question of the validity of an election by which it was sought to enlarge the limits of the city of East Dallas. The district court upon a final hearing held the territory sought to be annexed not a part of the city, and the respondents appeal.

We will dispose of the questions necessary to determine the appeal without reference to the order of the assignments of error. It is insisted that the district court had no power to hear and determine the cause. It must be conceded that under the constitution that court had no jurisdiction by reason merely of the nature of the proceeding. The writ of quo warranto is not mentioned in section 8, art. 5, of the constitution of 1876, and it was therefore held in the case of State v. De Gress, ante, 1029, (decided at the last Tyler term) that unless the value in controversy exceeded the sum of $500 the district court did not have jurisdiction in a quo warranto proceeding. But in this case it is alleged that the value of the property subject to taxation in the territory sought to be incorporated into the city is $1,500,000, and that the rate of taxation established by its ordinances is 75 cents on $100 worth of property. In this proceeding the state seeks to have it adjudged that the city has no authority or control over the inhabitants and property of the territory named in the information. The effect of a judgment of the court upon the merits is, according to the allegations of the petition, to determine the right of the respondent to collect for a single year taxes amounting to more than $10,000. But it is not the right to collect taxes for a single year only that is sought to be determined. The case, as others of like character, involves the right to collect taxes as long as the municipality, with the limits sought to be established, may continue to exist. We can hardly conceive a case involving the right of taxation over any considerable extent of territory in which the amount in controversy would not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the district court. In the cases of State v. Dunson, 9 S. W. Rep. 103, and Buford v. State, 10 S. W. Rep. 401, this court entertained jurisdiction of the appeals, which it could not have done if the courts below had no jurisdiction. These were quo warranto proceedings, and called in question the validity of the corporations of which the respondents were acting as officers. In such a case it necessarily follows that the amount involved exceeds the sum of $500. We conclude that the court below did not err in entertaining jurisdiction of this case.

It is also assigned that the court erred in not sustaining exceptions to the information on the ground that the petition for leave to file the information, and the information itself, are embraced in one paper. The relation, which is signed by the county attorney on behalf of the state, and is sworn to by the relator, contains a prayer that it be filed as an information; that the respondents be cited; and that upon the hearing the state have judgment ousting them from the franchises attempted to be exercised by them over the disputed territory. The statute seems to contemplate that there should be a separate petition and a separate information. 2 Sayles, Ann. St. art. 4098. But it has ever been the policy of our laws to look to the substance and not to the form of pleadings, and to uphold them when they contain allegations sufficient in substance to maintain the action or the defense, as the case may be, without reference to the form in which they are presented. Is it reasonable to presume that the...