City of Fort Worth v. Lillard
| Decision Date | 04 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 4411.) |
| Citation | 294 S.W. 831 |
| Parties | CITY OF FORT WORTH et al. v. LILLARD et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Suit by Lee A. Lillard and others against the City of Fort Worth and others to enjoin enforcement of an ordinance. Judgment granting temporary writ of injunction was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (272 S. W. 577), and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
R. E. Rouer and Gillis A. Johnson, both of Fort Worth, and E. F. Smith, of Austin, for plaintiffs in error.
Mayer, Rowe & Brown, of Fort Worth, for defendants in error.
The opinion of the honorable Court of Civil Appeals sets out very fully the pleadings in the case, and may be found in 272 S. W. 577.
The facts material to a decision of the case may be summarized as follows:
The city of Fort Worth, by a vote of its people, on December 11, 1924, adopted its charter under the Home Rule Amendment to the state Constitution (article 11, § 5), which charter contained the following provision:
"The use of the said public streets, highways, alleys and thoroughfares of this city which does not require the digging up or similar interference with said streets, alleys or highways for the installation of equipment, appliances or appurtenances to make the intended use possible, shall be treated and considered as a privilege subject to the control and disposition of the city council, and such privilege over and upon the said public streets, alleys, highways and thoroughfares of the city shall not be granted to any person or corporation excepting when public necessity and convenience may require such use and when given by ordinance passed by two-thirds vote of the city council."
In accord with said charter provision the City of Fort Worth enacted an ordinance which in effect was a prohibition of the use of the city's streets by those carrying passengers for hire, as disclosed by the caption to said ordinance in the following language:
"An ordinance declaring the right to use the public streets, highways, alleys and thoroughfares of the city of Fort Worth for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire to be a privilege and unlawful, unless the public necessity and convenience does in fact require such use, and a certificate of public necessity and convenience has been granted by the city council of the city of Fort Worth, and a permit issued in pursuance thereof by the city secretary; classifying vehicles carrying passengers for hire into two classes, and defining the same: Providing for the application for and the granting of such certificates and permits; declaring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
East Texas Motor Freight Lines v. Loftis
...743, writ refused. Two cases cited by petitioner, City of Arlington v. Lillard, 116 Tex. 446, 294 S.W. 829, and City of Fort Worth v. Lillard, 116 Tex. 509, 294 S.W. 831, involved ordinances which were held invalid because their effect was extraterritorial in that they interfered with the g......
-
Henderson v. Sotelo, 83-2383
...(5th Cir.1984); City of Fort Worth v. Lillard, 272 S.W. 577, 580 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1925), aff'd on other grounds, 116 Tex. 509, 294 S.W. 831, 832 (1927) (not reaching issue whether ordinance was not enacted in accordance with charter). The district court correctly construed the Pers......
-
Fletcher v. Bordelon
...to the public. Appellees cite us to the cases of City of Arlington v. Lillard, 116 Tex. 446, 294 S. W. 829, and City of Fort Worth v. Lillard, 116 Tex. 509, 294 S. W. 831, as sustaining their contention that the ordinance in question is void and unenforceable because it confers upon the cit......
-
City of Dallas, Texas v. Southwest Airlines Company
...of Texas, the regulatory agency must prevail. City of Arlington v. Lillard, 116 Tex. 446, 294 S.W. 829 (1927); City of Fort Worth v. Lillard, 116 Tex. 509, 294 S.W. 831 (1927). For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes: (1) That determinations of public convenience and necessity respec......