City of Grand Prairie v. State ex rel. Crouch

• Decision Date: 26 February 1954
• Docket Number: No. 15500,15500
• Citation: 266 S.W.2d 184
• Parties: CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE et al. v. STATE ex rel. CROUCH et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 184

266 S.W.2d 184

CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE et al. v. STATE ex rel. CROUCH et al.

No. 15500.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

Feb. 26, 1954.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1954.

A. J. Thuss, Jr., Dallas, and Archie C. Price, Grand Prairie, for appellants.

Howard M. Fender, Dist. Atty., Tarrant County, Fort Worth, Cantey, Hanger, Johnson, Scarborough & Gooch, Carlisle Cravens, and Ed Reichelt, Fort Worth, for appellees.

BOYD, Justice.

This is a suit filed in the District Court of Tarrant County by The State of Texas on relation of W. T. Crouch et al., in the nature of quo warranto and for injunction and damages against the City of Grand Prairie and its Mayor and Commissioners, individually and in their official capacities. All defendants filed pleas of privilege to be sued in Dallas County, and in the defendant city's plea of privilege, it was alleged that all its business is transacted and all its functions, both proprietary and governmental, are administered in Dallas County. The pleas were overruled and the defendants appealed.

The petition of appellees alleged that the City of Grand Prairie, on May 6, 1953, passed on first reading an annexation ordinance covering lands owned by the relators situated in Tarrant County; that said action was wholly unrelated to the city's needs, was arbitrary and unreasonable, and was part of a conspiracy to extend the purported corporate powers over appellees' lands, which are grazing and agricultural lands, when the purpose of the city was not to complete the annexation but to hold appellees' lands for 'trading' purposes with other cities; that the city did not intend to render any services to the area in question at that time, or in the foreseeable future. Prayer was 'to cancel, annul and hold for naught' the purported ordinance as to the area in dispute, and for injunction and damages. This suit was filed on June 19, 1953.

It was shown that all the individual appellants reside in Dallas County, and that the City Hall and municipal offices of appellant city are in Dallas County. There is evidence, however, that the city limits of appellant city extend three blocks, or more, into Tarrant County, irrespective of the lands involved in the proceedings giving rise to this suit.

Appellees controverted the pleas of privilege and alleged that venue lies in Tarrant County for the following reasons: (1) that the city, being partly in Tarrant County, is domiciled in that county; (2) that under quo warranto proceedings the venue lies in Tarrant County because the lands in dispute are in that county; (3) that appellants have committed an actionable conspiracy, which has damaged appellees, an essential part of which was committed in Tarrant County; (4) that in passing said ordinance on first reading appellants were guilty of legal fraud and defalcation within the meaning of Art. 1995, sub. 7, R.C.S., Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1995, subd. 7, and that an integral part of such fraud and defalcation occurred in Tarrant County; (5) that the actions of the city resulted in damage to the lands of appellees, which are situated in Tarrant County; (6) that appellants committed a trespass on property located in Tarrant County; and (7) that venue lies in Tarrant County under Art. 1995, sub. 29a, R.C.S., Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1995, subd. 29a, providing that all necessary parties may be joined in the suit, and if venue lies in the county as to one, then the other parties may be held in that county.

It seems to be conceded by all parties that for venue purposes a municipality is to be treated as a person, with the right to be sued in the county of its residence unless an exception to exclusive venue in that county is alleged and proved.

Appellants contend that no exception to exclusive venue in Dallas County has been sustained by the pleadings and evidence, and that the court erred in overruling the pleas of privilege. There are no special findings in the record, and we must presume that the court found the existence of all the exceptions to exclusive venue set out in appellees' controverting affidavit, which are supported by evidence of probative force. Suit v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 243; Chapman v. Chapman, Tex.civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 127; Rasberry v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W.2d 947; Nielson v. Jackson, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W.2d 831.

Appellants' first point is that the city is domiciled in Dallas County, the county in which its City Hall is located and in which its governmental functions are performed. Appellees counter that it is a resident of both counties, and may be sued in either. The question does not appear to have been decided in this state.

Appellees call attention to this statement in McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, sec. 2491: 'Where a city is situated on the line between two counties, the action may be brought in either county,' and to the holding in Fox v. City of Fostoria, 14 Ohio Cir.Ct.R. 471, 8 Ohio Cir.Dec. 39, cited by the author in support of his text. That case, however, was reversed by the Supreme Court of Ohio, City of Fostoria v. Fox, 60 Ohio St.R. 340, 54 N.E. 370, 371. In that case it was shown that the defendant city was situated in two counties, the county in which the suit was brought and another county in which its principal place of business and all of its offices were located. The court said: '* * * But it is also claimed that, where a city is partly within one and partly within another county, it has a situs in each. This, we think, is not admissible. If this were so, it would be two cities instead of one. It would be quite as consistent with reason to say that an individual could have two domiciles. The situs of a city is to be determined by the place where its principal seat of municipal government is located. * * *'

In Mayor and Council of Town of Arlington v. Calhoun, 148 Ga. 132, 95 S.E. 991, 992, the defendant city was situated in two counties, in one of which, Early County, the suit was brought. In holding that the city's residence was in the other county, the court said: '* * * In our opinion the controlling fact is the location of the council chambers, the office of the town clerk, the depository of the municipal records, the police court, and the voting for all municipal elections. These are all...