Deacon v. City of Euless, 16683
| Decision Date | 17 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 16683,16683 |
| Parties | W. Floyd DEACON et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF EULESS, Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Shirley W. Peters, Denton, for appellants.
Bondurant & Cribbs and James A. Cribbs, Arlington, for appellee.
Appellants filed a collateral attack on three City of Euless annexation ordinances. Both appellee and appellants filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court in granting appellee's motion found as a matter of law that the three ordinances were valid. We affirm.
Two of the ordinances, 189 and 190, were given first reading on November 13, 1962, and the third ordinance 192 was given first reading on December 11, 1962. All three ordinances were given second and final reading on June 25, 1963. At all times pertinent hereto the City of Euless was a home rule city, having duly adopted a home rule municipal charter under the provisions of Art. XI, § 5, of the Constitution of the State of Texas, Vernon's Ann.St., and Art. 1175, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.St.
(1) At the time the annexation ordinances were finally passed on June 25, 1963, the only limitation on the authority of a home rule city to annex additional territory was that the territory sought to be annexed be adjacent to the annexing city and not a part of any other municipality. City of Houston v. State ex rel. City of West University Place, 142 Tex. 190, 176 S.W.2d 928 (1944).
By the first readings of the annexation ordinances on November 13 and December 11, 1962 the City of Euless acquired annexation priority over the territories embraced by such ordinances and such annexation was duly and finally consummated on June 25, 1963, in compliance with the provisions of existing statutes. The jurisdiction of the City of Euless for the purpose of annexing such territory was not subject to defeat under any statute in existence at the time. Beyer v. Templeton, 147 Tex. 94, 212 S.W.2d 134 (1948).
To defeat the annexation ordinances the appellants rely upon the provisions of Art. 970a, § 7, subd, D, V.A.T.S., reading as follows:
(2) This act was approved by the Legislature on May 14, 1963, to be effective 90 days after May 24, 1963, the date of adjourment.
'In computing the time when an act is to be deemed effective, both the day of the adjournment of the legislature and the day when the law goes into effect must be excluded.' 53 Tex.Jur.2d 48, § 26. Thus, the act in question would be effective as of August 23, 1963. Under the terms of the act above set out an additional 90 days was permitted beyond August 23, 1963.
The provisions of the statutes under which the City of Euless undertook to annex the territory in question were in full force and effect at all times pertinent to the facts of this case. The provisions of such statutes which were repealed or altered by Art. 970a, supra, remained in force and effect until August 23, 1963, the effective date of the latter Article. The annexation was completed on June 25, 1963, some 59 days prior to the effective date of Art. 970a.
In our opinion the statute in question was prospective and not retrospective in its operation and the ordinances in question and the annexation priority acquired by the City of Euless on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deacon v. City of Euless
...plaintiffs' motion, granted the City's motion, and rendered judgment declaring the ordinances valid. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 397 S.W.2d 935. We reverse the judgments of the courts below and remand the cause to the trial court for further The ordinances under attack were pending......