Colonial Trust Co. v. Hill County, 1190-5529.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 1190-5529.,1190-5529. |
| Parties | COLONIAL TRUST CO. v. HILL COUNTY. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
The opinion written by Justice Stanford of the Court of Civil Appeals, herein adopted, is as follows:
Not being able to agree with my associates, I hereby file the following dissenting opinion:
This suit was filed by appellee to recover of appellant a debt evidenced by two time warrants in the sum of $1,192.50 each, executed by appellant, the one on April 1, 1919, and the other on April 4, 1919, both of said time warrants having been given payable to the order of the Avery Company in part settlement for two tractors purchased by appellant from said Avery Company on February 28, 1919; said time warrants having been transferred by indorsement without recourse before maturity by the Avery Company to appellee. Appellant defended upon the ground that said debt for said two tractors was created without any provision being made for the payment of same out of the current revenues of the county for the current fiscal year 1919, or out of any funds within the immediate control of the county, contrary to the provisions of section 7 of article 11 of the Constitution of Texas, by reason of which the debt sued upon was void. The case has heretofore been before this court and is reported in 288 S. W. 849, and also before our Supreme Court, reported in 294 S. W. 516. The case was tried before the court without a jury and judgment rendered for appellee, plaintiff below, for the amount of said two time warrants, from which judgment appellant has appealed.
By its first and fifth propositions, appellant contends, in effect, that the evidence established conclusively that the contract of purchase of said two tractors included an agreement that the purchase price thereof should be paid entirely out of taxes levied and collected for future years, and that no provision was made for payment therefor, by reason of which the debt and warrants sued upon, under section 7, article 11 of the Constitution, were void, and the trial court erred in not so holding. To show said contract of purchase, as shown by the order of the commissioners' court, did include such agreement, appellant, over proper objections by appellee, was permitted to introduce parol evidence. Based upon its cross-assignments and proper bills of exception, appellee contends that the court was in error in admitting said parol evidence, but contends, further, that with said parol evidence before the court it was still a question of fact for the court whether or not, under the contract of purchase of said tractors, the price therefor was to be paid out of funds available during the current fiscal year of 1919, the year same were purchased, and that the court was correct in resolving this question of fact in favor of appellee. As these questions are so closely related, it is thought they should be considered together. Appellee introduced and relied upon the following testimony to sustain a recovery:
The order of the commissioners' court as follows:
The time warrant No. 8982 is as follows:
Indorsed:
Time warrant No. 9079 is as follows:
Indorsed:
The several accounts dated March 26, 1919, involved in the transaction in favor of the Avery Company of Texas and against Hill county, including the account sued on, were duly presented to the commissioners' court and time warrants issued therefor April 1, 1919.
The secretary-treasurer of appellee testified, in substance, that appellee was the county depository for Hill county in 1919 and handled practically all of the county funds; that on February 28, 1919, the books of said depository showed $35,133.97 to the credit of the county treasurer, and $317,737.80 to the account of the tax collector, making an aggregate of $352,871.77, not including special road district funds; that part of that money belonged to the state; the most of it belonged to Hill county; that the most of those funds arose from county taxes; that the Colonial Trust Company bought those warrants before maturity from the Avery Company of Texas and paid the money for them. The evidence is undisputed that appellant received said tractors soon after their purchase in 1919; that the market value of said tractors was $3,375 each; that they did good work, and there were no defects in said machinery; that they were operated on the Hill county roads about four years— until they were worn out and of no value.
Appellant, in defense to appellee's cause of action, over the objection of appellee, introduced the evidence of W. T. Green, R. T. Burns, and Ralph Boston. The evidence of Green was as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. Bond, 2413.
...v. State, 18 Tex.App. 378. "The commissioners' court is a court of record and speaks through its minutes." Colonial Trust Co. v. Hill County, Tex.Com.App., 27 S.W.2d 144, point 7, page 149. "Every court of this state, shall have respect for the judgment of the accredited authorities." Ex pa......
- Henderson v. Odessa Bldg. & Finance Co.
-
Brodhead v. City of Forney
...of the parol evidence rule. Citing Colonial Trust Co. v. Hill County, 294 S.W. 516 (Tex.Com.App., 1927), and Colonial Trust Co. v. Hill County, 27 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Com.App., 1930), the plaintiffs argue that absent pleadings by the City of fraud, accident, or mistake, this parol proof was ina......
-
Tarrant County v. Roberts, 1
...evidence is not admissible to prove the intention of the court in adopting the order. 15 T.J. (2d) 271, Sec. 43; Colonial Trust Co. v. Hill County, Tex.Com.App., 27 S.W.2d 144; King v. Marion County, Tex.Civ.App., 202 S.W. Let us examine the order of November 15, 1951, to determine if such ......