City of Ft. Worth v. Cureton

• Decision Date: 02 June 1920
• Docket Number: (No. 3351.)
• Citation: 222 S.W. 531
• Parties: CITY OF FT. WORTH v. CURETON, Atty. Gen.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

222 S.W. 531

CITY OF FT. WORTH v. CURETON, Atty. Gen.

(No. 3351.)

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 2, 1920.

Original petition by the City of Ft. Worth for a writ of mandamus against C. M. Cureton, Attorney General. Writ granted.

T. J. Powell, D. W. Odell, and R. M. Rowland, all of Ft. Worth, for plaintiff.

Hon. C. M. Cureton, Atty. Gen., and W. P. Dumas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

PHILLIPS, C. J.

The Attorney General having refused to approve a bond issue of the City of Fort Worth in the amount of $1,890,000 —$400,000 of the bonds being for water works purposes, the City prays for a mandamus to compel his approval of the issue.

The bonds and the tax necessary to provide for their payment, principal and interest, were duly voted at an election held April 8, 1919, for the purpose. The objections to them made by the Attorney General are based upon his construction of certain provisions in the City's charter. If that construction is erroneous, it is conceded that the bonds should have his approval.

The charter of the City granted by the Legislature in 1909 gave it the power to levy for general purposes a tax not exceeding $1.75 on the $100 valuation, "inclusive of the school tax that may be levied by the board of trustees of public schools, as provided in this Act."

By the other provisions of the charter, the board of trustees of the Fort Worth Independent School District, created by the same Act, was authorized to require of the City a tax levy for school purposes of not exceeding 50 cents on the $100 valuation.

Accordingly, the City's maximum tax rate for all general purposes under the original charter, was $1.25 on the $100 valuation.

The charter also authorized a special tax for water works purposes of 25 cents on the $100 valuation, not to be levied, however, except upon the approval of "the qualified voters" of the City at an election ordered according to the referendum provisions of the charter. Under those provisions governing bond elections, only qualified property tax paying voters are entitled to vote; and in the election held with respect to these bonds, only such voters were allowed to vote.

The charter was amended, June 17, 1919, at an election held under Amended Section 5 of Article 11 of the Constitution, so as to authorize for general school purposes and for medical inspection in the schools an additional tax of 21 cents and 2 cents on the $100 valuation, respectively. The effect of these two amendments was to enlarge the City's taxing power for all school purposes to the extent of 23 cents, affording it a maximum rate for such purposes of 73 cents on the $100 valuation.

The principal question in the case is whether the grant by these amendments of the additional taxing power for school purposes of 23 cents on the $100 valuation, has reduced in the same proportion the City's general taxing power of $1.25 on the $100 valuation as originally conferred by the charter. As to the 2 cent tax for medical inspection in the schools, the Attorney General does not contend that the City's general taxing power has been impaired, but we will treat the question as affected by the authorization under the amendments of both the additional 21 cents general school tax and the 2 cent tax.

If notwithstanding these amendments the City still has a general taxing power of $1.25 on the $100 valuation, the tax voted as provision for the payment of the $1,490,000 of the bonds is a valid tax, since, with other taxes...