Commissioners' Court of Limestone County v. Garrett
Citation | 236 S.W. 970 |
Decision Date | 25 January 1922 |
Docket Number | (No. 296-3581.) |
Parties | COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF LIMESTONE COUNTY et al. v. GARRETT et al. |
Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
Suit by Claud Garrett and others against the Commissioners' Court of Limestone County and others. From a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (230 S. W. 1010) reversing a judgment for defendants and remanding the cause, defendants bring error. Reversed, and judgment of trial court affirmed.
C. S. & J. E. Bradley, of Groesbeck, for plaintiffs in error.
Richd. Mays, of Corsicana, and A. B. Rennolds, of Mexia, for defendants in error.
The Thirty-Sixth Legislature passed, and the Governor approved on March 15, 1919, a statute denominated "An act to create a more efficient road system for Limestone county, Texas," the provisions of which pertinent to the issues in this suit are:
Chapter 74, Special Laws of Texas, Thirty-Sixth Legislature, p. 236.
Thereafter in road district No. 15, a defined district in Limestone county, an election was held resulting in favor of the issuance of the bonds in the sum of $300,000 to be used for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating macadamized, graveled, or paved roads, or in aid thereof, in that district. In accordance with the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the act, above set out, three citizens of the district were elected as members of the board and all qualified as provided therein. The board then entered upon the performance of its functions; whereupon a controversy arose between the three citizen members and the county judge and county auditor, on the one hand, and the four county commissioners, as commissioners' court, and the city commission of Groesbeck, a town of more than 1,000 inhabitants and less than 5,000 inhabitants, incorporated under the general laws of Texas and situated in road district No. 15, on the other hand, concerning the streets along which the Exall Highway should be built through Groesbeck. The three citizen members, the county judge, and the county auditor, being all of the board as constituted except the county commissioner in whose commissioner's precinct road district No. 15 seems to be located, contended for one route through the town, and the county commissioners, as a commissioners' court, and the city commission of Groesbeck, contended for a different route. The board began to construct the highway through Groesbeck along the route chosen by it. The four county commissioners and the city commission of Groesbeck interfered, and the commissioners' court took from the board the whole business of constructing the highway. The board of permanent road commissioners for road district No. 15 and two citizens of the district then filed a petition for injunction against the court. The petition alleged, among many other things, that a majority of the commissioners' court "have unlawfully interfered with and caused operations thereon to be suspended * * * and are preparing to arbitrarily construct the road through the town" along the streets favored for its location by the court, and prayed for an injunction restraining the court from "attempting in any manner, to prevent plaintiff road board from the discharge of its duty and lawful right in the construction of the highway" along the route chosen by it, and that "the court be enjoined from using any of the moneys of the road district in paying for work necessary by its attempt to change the location of said road as originally made," and that, "if it shall be held, for any reason, that defendant court has the power to improve the change in question, * * * that it be required to pay for same out of county funds subject to its disposal, and not out of any funds owned by road district No. 15."
and that "in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no local or special law shall be enacted" except "for the preservation of the game and fish of this state in certain localities."
The trial court, after a hearing, denied the application. Plaintiffs appealed,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tarrant County v. Ashmore
...of the public." Kimbrough v. Barnett, 93 Tex. 301, 310, 55 S.W. 120, 122 (1900), quoted in Commissioners' Court of Limestone County v. Garrett, 236 S.W. 970, 972 (Tex.Comm'n App.1922, judgmt adopted). As the foregoing passage indicates, public offices began to be described properly by Texas......
-
Taylor v. Commonwealth
...McLean, 35 N.D. 203, 159 N.W. 847, 851; State v. Bond, 94 W. Va. 255, 118 S.E. 276, 279; Commissioners' Court of Limestone County v. Garrett, Tex. Com. App., 236 S.W. 970, 972; Board of Education of Doerun v. Bacon, 22 Ga. App. 72, 95 S.E. 753, 754; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala. App. 212, 68 So. ......
-
Seydler v. Border
...Bexar County v. Linden, 110 Tex. 339, 220 S.W. 761; Garrett v. Commissioners' Court, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W. 1010, 1011, reversed, Tex.Com.App., 236 S.W. 970; State v. Bank of Mineral Wells, Tex.Civ.App., 251 S.W. Each and all of these relied-upon opinions dealt with controlling states of fa......
-
Taylor v. Com. ex rel. Dummit
... ... 75 TAYLOR v. COMMONWEALTH ex rel. DUMMIT. Court of Appeals of KentuckyJune 6, 1947 ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Franklin County; W. B. Ardery, Judge ... Action ... by ... Bond, 94 W.Va. 255, 118 S.E ... 276, 279; Commissioners' Court of Limestone County v ... Garrett, Tex.Com.App., ... ...