City of San Antonio v. Royal

• Decision Date: 16 June 1891
• Citation: 16 S.W. 1101
• Parties: CITY OF SAN ANTONIO v. ROYAL.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

16 S.W. 1101

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO v. ROYAL.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 16, 1891.

Commissioners' decision. Appeal from district court, Bexar county; GEORGE H. NOONAN, Judge.

Oscar Bergstrom, for appellant. Johnson & Huston, for appellee.

HOBBY, P. J.

The appellee, Sally Royal, sued the city of San Antonio, a municipal corporation, for damages for the alleged breach of a contract. She alleged that on the 1st day of January, 1887, she entered into a verbal contract and lease with said defendant through the duly-authorized officer, A. Bruni, market-master, whereby said defendant did lease to plaintiff a stall in the north-west corner of the market-house for the term of one year from the 1st day of January, 1887, for the purpose of carrying on the business of selling coffee and meals, in consideration whereof she promised to pay defendant the sum of $10 per month; and that she tendered her rent when it became due to appellant's market-master and other officers. She did a prosperous business from January, 1887, to about March 31, 1887, when appellant's officers and agents, by appellant's direction, forcibly took possession of the stand that she had leased, forbade her to enter, seized her furniture, cooking utensils, and other goods, claiming that the city council had canceled her lease. She prayed for $1,300 actual and $5,000 exemplary damages. Appellant answered by general demurrer, general denial, and specially that appellee's lease, if any she had, was canceled by the appellant city for failure to pay rents due by her; and that, upon failing and refusing to vacate the stand, her property was removed therefrom, and stored for her account, and held subject to her order. The cause was tried on the 22d day of January, 1889, and judgment rendered in favor of appellee for the sum of $500, and for the possession of the fixtures and furniture removed from said coffee stand. The trial being before the court without a jury, appellant excepted to the judgment, and gave notice of appeal; and, being specially authorized by its act of incorporation to appeal without bond, filed the following assignments of error, upon which it relies for a reversal of the judgment of the lower court. The error first assigned is the court's action in overruling the defendant's general demurrer to plaintiff's original petition, because said petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in this: that it does not show that the city council of defendant city had ever passed any ordinance for the establishment or regulation of a market-house, in which plaintiff claimed to have rented a stall, and it does not show that the market-master was ever authorized by an ordinance of the city...