City of El Paso v. Ruckman

• Decision Date: 30 May 1898
• Citation: 46 S.W. 25
• Parties: CITY OF EL PASO v. RUCKMAN.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 25

46 S.W. 25

CITY OF EL PASO v. RUCKMAN.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 30, 1898.

Certified questions from court of civil appeals, Fourth supreme judicial district.

Action by the city of El Paso against Mrs. Frank Ruckman. From a judgment, plaintiff appealed to the court of civil appeals for the Fourth district, which certified questions to the supreme court. Questions answered.

Millard Patterson and Wyndham Kemp, for appellant. A. Blacker and L. H. Davis, for appellee.

GAINES, C. J.

This case comes to us upon a certificate from the court of civil appeals for the Fourth supreme judicial district. The statement and questions are as follows:

"In April, 1882, and in October, 1882, elections were held in the city of El Paso in reference to the control of its public schools, but in neither case was the election such as to legally constitute the city a school district. The city, however, began to act as an independent school district in the spring of 1882, and has ever since exercised such control, in the manner and under the circumstances hereinafter set forth. The election of October 1882, was by the qualified voters to decide whether the control should be by the council or by trustees; and the result of this vote was in favor of control by trustees, by more than two-thirds of the votes. On December 5, 1882, an election was held, at which trustees were elected. The council ordered an election to take place on March 31, 1883, for the purpose of determining whether or not there shall be levied on the taxable property within the limits of the city a tax not to exceed one-half of one per cent., in addition to the pro rata of the available school fund from the state, as may be necessary to conduct the public schools, etc., at which only taxpayers should vote. The vote was practically unanimous in favor of the tax, and more than two-thirds of the votes. It was admitted that ever since the year 1882 the city of El Paso has been acting as an independent school district, organized with a board of trustees such as is provided in chapter 67 of the Acts of 1879; that soon after said election in November, 1882 (to wit, in December, 1882), an election was held, at which a board of trustees was elected to take charge of, manage, and control the public free schools of the city of El Paso, and ever since the year 1882 all the public free schools of the city have been in the hands of, and under the management and control of, such board of trustees; that regular elections have been held ever since the year 1882 in the city of El Paso for the selection of trustees as members of said board, at which such trustees have been elected by the qualified electors of said city; that four large public-school buildings have been erected, under the auspices of said board of trustees, in the city of El Paso, since said election in the spring of 1882, and a large public free school system has grown up in said city, and has existed in said city for more than 15 years; that during all of said time taxes have been levied and collected annually for the maintenance and support of the public free schools of said city, and, ever since the issuance of the school bonds mentioned in the plaintiff's original petition, taxes have been levied and collected annually to pay the interest, and provide a sinking fund on the same, and that prior to the year 1897 no question was ever raised or made respecting the legal existence of the city of El Paso as an independent school district, or the legality of the school bonds mentioned, and no question raised prior to that year respecting the legality of either the school-maintenance tax or the school-bond tax; that ever since the spring of 1882 said city has received regularly its pro rata of the available school fund. By a charter granted the city in 1889, the legislature recognized El Paso as a school district, by providing that it might levy a certain tax to maintain its public schools, and after this the city issued said school bonds.

"Questions: No. 1. Neither of the elections of April, 1882, or November, 1882, being sufficient to legally create the city an independent school district, under the state of facts shown above, relative to the long-continued exercise by it of the powers of a school district, can its legal existence as such, at and since the time it so commenced to act, be inquired into in a suit by the city to recover taxes levied for school purposes for the years 1894 and 1895? No. 2. The election of March 31, 1883, at which the taxpayers voted the tax for schools, being sufficient, is it conclusively presumed from the long-continued exercise by the city (since the spring of 1882) of the functions of a school district, as shown in the above statement, that when said election of March 31, 1883, was had, it was legally in existence as a school district?"

The rule is well established that when the creation of a public corporation—municipal or quasi municipal—is authorized by statute, and a corporation has been organized under the color of such authority, its corporate existence cannot be inquired into by the courts in a collateral proceeding. The validity of the incorporation can only be determined in a suit brought for that purpose in the name of the state, or by some individual under the authority of the state. who has a special interest which is affected by the existence of the corporation. Graham v. City of...