City of De Leon v. Fincher
| Citation | 344 S.W.2d 743 |
| Decision Date | 10 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 3617,3617 |
| Parties | CITY OF DE LEON, Appellant, v. R. G. FINCHER et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas |
Frederick G. Harmon, DeLeon, for appellant.
Frank Sparks, Eastland, for appellee.
This is a writ of mandamus case in which R. G. Fincher and others, hereinafter referred to as citizens, sought to compel the mayor and the Board of City Commissioners of the City of DeLeon, hereinafter referred to as City, to call an election upon a proposed amendment to the charter. The effect of the amendment to be voted on was whether or not the City would continue to maintain parking meters. The court entered judgment for the plaintiffs and the City has appealed contending the court erred in granting the writ of mandamus because (1) the plaintiffs had no justiciable interest in the subject matter (2) the proposed amendment is void because it contains more than one subject (3) the proposed amendment invades the province of the City to provide for the health and welfare of the general public (4) the judgment is contradictory and (5) because the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law.
The parties stipulated that a petition for election with the requisite number of qualified voters of the City was duly and properly presented to the City and the City refused to call such election.
The City's point that the citizens do not have a justiciable interest in the law suit is without merit because one or more of them signed the petition requesting the election. This fact is sufficient to give them an interest different to the general public in reference to holding the election. Mitchell v. McCharen, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 676.
The City's point that the court erred in granting the writ because the charter amendment is void was decided contrary to such contention by the Supreme Court in Glass et al. v. Smith et al., 150 Tex. 632, 244 S.W.2d 645, 648, wherein the court said: 'While we do not agree with the full import of the rule announced by the Court of Civil Appeals, we do agree with its conclusion that respondents being otherwise entitled to have the initiative election called and held, cannot be defeated in that right by the refusal of petitioners to perform purely ministerial duties on the ground that in their opinion the ordinance would be invalid if adopted.'
Submitting to the voters of DeLeon for adoption or rejection, the proposed amendment to its charter is legislative in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Hilton Head Island v. Coalition of Expressway Opponents
...a legislative branch of the municipal government when it exercises its statutory right to initiate an ordinance. City of DeLeon v. Fincher, 344 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.Civ.App.1961). Thus, some courts view initiated ordinances as tantamount to acts perpetrated by the legislature, and hold that the ......
-
Village of Ridgefield Park, In re
...Cal.Rptr. 284 (D.Ct.App.1967); Mervynne v. Acker, 189 Cal.App.2d 558, 11 Cal.Rptr. 340 (D.Ct.App.1961); Contra, City of De Leon v. Fincher, 344 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.Civ.App.1961); State v. Hitt, 155 Ohio St. 529, 99 N.E.2d 659 (Sup.Ct.1951). In Bragg and Mervynne the courts recognized that in Ca......
-
Hunt v. Bass
...754 (1888); Pierce v. Southern Pacific Co., 410 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1967, writ ref'd); City of DeLeon v. Fincher, 344 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1961, writ ref'd n.r.e.). This general rule of standing is applied in all cases absent a statutory exception to the contrary. S......
-
Ware v. Cannon
...adopted. Johnson v. City of Astoria, above. See also City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 133 Colo. 262, 293 P.2d 974, and City of De Leon v. Fincher, Tex.Civ.App., 344 S.W.2d 743. The majority view, however, holds that if the proposed legislation is manifestly unconstitutional, or invalid on its f......