City of Port Arthur v. Gaskin, 3135.
| Decision Date | 11 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 3135.,3135. |
| Citation | 107 S.W.2d 610 |
| Parties | CITY OF PORT ARTHUR et al. v. GASKIN et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; Geo. C. O'Brien, Judge.
Suit by G. W. Gaskin and others against the City of Port Arthur and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
A. W. Dycus, Jr., and V. J. Wistner, both of Port Arthur, for appellants.
Renfro & Keen and Morris & Bennett, all of Beaumont, for appellees.
The City of Port Arthur was incorporated by special act of the Legislature, chapter 52 of the Loc. & Sp. Acts of the Thirty-second Legislature (1911); section 1, art. 1, c. 2, of this act provided as follows: "Territory adjoining the corporate limits of the city of Port Arthur, regardless of shape or configuration, may be annexed to said city as follows."
Acting under its charter and other laws, on the 7th day of November, 1929, the City of Port Arthur "passed an ordinance" calling "a special annexation election" for the purpose of adding the following described territory to its corporate limits:
"Beginning at a point which is the S. E. corner of the city limits of the City of Port Arthur, Texas, same being the intersection of the boundary line between the state of Texas and Louisiana and the W. boundary line of the Beaumont-Port Arthur Highway or Ninth avenue, extended; Thence first course, N. 48 Degrees 47' W. along the W. boundary line of the Beaumont-Port Arthur Highway (or Ninth avenue) to the North corner of Block 5, Range 1 of the Port Arthur Land Company survey; Thence, second course, N. 41 degrees 13' E. 5310 feet; Thence, third course, S. 48 degrees 47' E. 5280 feet; Thence, fourth course, S. 41 degrees 13' W. 2630 feet; Thence fifth course, S. 48 degrees 47' E. to the boundary line between the state of Louisiana and Texas; Thence, sixth course, in a southwesterly direction along said boundary line to the point of beginning."
The election was duly held, the result declared in favor of the election, and an ordinance was duly passed by the City of Port Arthur annexing the said territory to its corporate limits. Acting under these ordinances, the City of Port Arthur undertook to exercise jurisdiction over all of the annexed territory.
The annexed territory included the "town of Griffing Park," and this town contested the power and right of the City of Port Arthur to annex it by virtue of the annexation election; that contest was sustained by the courts, and by judgment of the district court of Jefferson county, affirmed by this court, Town of Griffing Park et al., v. City of Port Arthur et al., 36 S.W.(2d) 593, the acts of the City of Port Arthur in attempt to annex the town of Griffing Park were declared wholly and absolutely void ab initio.
In 1932, the City of Port Arthur amended its charter and left out of its corporate limits all of the property which it attempted to annex by the election held in 1929. After amending its charter in the respects stated, the City of Port Arthur undertook by suit to collect taxes levied and assessed by it, for the years 1930 and 1931, against all the property annexed in 1929, except the property within the corporate limits of the town of Griffing Park. G. W. Gaskins et al., appellees herein, instituted this suit in the Fifty-eighth district court of Jefferson county against appellant City of Port Arthur et al., to enjoin the collection of this tax. Among other grounds for relief, appellees pleaded that their property was "not adjacent to the City of Port Arthur," but was "adjacent to the town of Griffing Residential Park, an incorporated city"; on the grounds stated in their petition appellees alleged that the attempted annexation of their property to the City of Port Arthur was absolutely void. Appellants answered by general demurrer, general denial, etc. On trial to the court without a jury, judgment was entered in favor of appellees against appellants granting them the relief prayed for, in effect declaring void the attempted annexation of appellees' property to the City of Port Arthur and perpetually enjoining appellees from attempting to collect any taxes assessed by the City of Port Arthur against appellees' property for the years 1930 and 1931. From that judgment, appellants have duly prosecuted their appeal to this court on the two following propositions:
The case was tried below on an agreed statement of facts, in part as follows: The annexation ordinances are designated in the record as Ordinance No. 980, and Ordinance No. 982. We quote as follows from the agreed statement.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Matagorda County Drainage Dist. No. 3
.... . .' " City of Galena Park v. City of Houston, 133 S.W.2d 162, 163 (Tex.Civ.App. Galveston 1939, writ ref'd). In City of Port Arthur v. Gaskin, 107 S.W.2d 610 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1937, no writ), a similar statutory prohibition was violated when the city attempted to annex territory not......
-
City of Irving v. Callaway
...v. Tate, Tex.Civ.App., 35 S.W.2d 264; Town of Griffing Park v. City of Port Arthur, Tex.Civ.App., 36 S.W.2d 593; City of Port Arthur v. Gaskin, Tex.Civ.App., 107 S.W.2d 610; City of Galena Park v. City of Houston, Tex.Civ.App., 133 S.W.2d 162; Lefler v. City of Dallas, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W......
-
City of Granite Shoals v. Winder
...invalid and void," contestant could proceed "without the joinder of the State under a writ of quo warranto") (citing City of Port Arthur v. Gaskin, 107 S.W.2d 610 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1937, no writ) (holding that State is necessary party only when action "is merely voidable"), and Hunt v.......
-
State ex rel. Winn v. City of San Antonio
...been stricken, see the cited case of Stewart v. Adams, 50 Kan. 560, 32 P. 122.) As we understand the decision of City of Port Arthur v. Gaskin, Tex.Civ.App., 107 S.W.2d 610, it does not support appellants' position, but simply holds that a city may not annex territory which is not adjacent ......