Ex Parte Barrett, 1422-5696.
| Decision Date | 20 April 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 1422-5696.,1422-5696. |
| Citation | 37 S.W.2d 741 |
| Parties | Ex parte BARRETT et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Morriss & Morriss and Reed Cozart, all of San Antonio, for respondents.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding instituted in the Supreme Court by the relators, Thurman Barrett and two others, against whom the district court of Bexar county has entered a judgment imposing upon them a punishment, as for contempt of said court. The material facts are, in effect, as follows: Harlendale is an unincorporated town in Bexar county, and contains some 3,500 inhabitants, including 1,300 qualified voters. In July, 1930, upon petition of the required number of inhabitants of the town, an election was ordered by the county judge to be held on August 9, 1930, for the purpose of determining whether or not certain territory lying in the town should be incorporated as a town. The territorial boundaries of the proposed corporation, as same are set out in the petition for the election, and in the election order, embraced but a part of the town. On August 8, 1930, W. J. Morrison, and a number of other resident property taxpaying voters of the town of Harlendale, presented to the acting judge of one of the district courts of Bexar county a petition seeking an injunction to restrain the officers of said election from holding said election, on the ground that the election was not authorized by the statutes, in that a large portion of the town and a large number of its inhabitants and voters were not included within the boundaries of the proposed corporation. Some of the petitioners for injunction reside and own property within the proposed boundaries. Others reside in the part of the town that lies outside of the proposed boundaries, but own property lying inside said boundaries. The petition alleged in detail the above-stated facts as rendering the election and the proposed incorporation invalid. In substance the facts relating to the election are the same as in the case of State v. Stein (Tex. Com. App.) 26 S.W.(2d) 182. The judge issued a temporary injunction to restrain the holding of said election. The relators, being the officers to conduct said election, disobeyed the injunction and proceeded to hold the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Tucci
...L.Ed. 430 (1945) (statute and injunction barring union organizer from soliciting union members without registering); Ex parte Barrett, 120 Tex. 311, 37 S.W.2d 741 (1931) (injunction against holding an election was outside the general scope of judicial power); Ex parte Castro, 115 Tex. 77, 2......
-
City of Austin v. Thompson
...to judicial control. This comprehends the whole election, including every step and proceeding necessary to its completion." In Ex parte Barrett, 120 Tex. 311, 37 S. W.2d 741, a suit was brought by taxpayers to enjoin an election on the ground that the election was not authorized by the stat......
-
Todd v. Helton
...applied even to elections which are void. Leslie v. Griffin, 25 S.W.2d 820 (Tex.Comm'n App.1930, holding approved); Ex parte Barrett, 120 Tex. 311, 37 S.W.2d 741 (1931); City of Austin v. Thompson, 147 Tex. 639, 219 S.W.2d 57 (1949); cf. Oden v. Barbee, 103 Tex. 449, 129 S.W. 602 (1910). In......
-
City of Cleveland v. Keep Cleveland Safe, 09-15-00076-CV
..., 147 Tex. 639, 219 S.W.2d 57, 59 (1949) (district court is without authority to enjoin even a void election) and Ex parte Barrett , 120 Tex. 311, 37 S.W.2d 741, 742 (1931) (orig. proceeding) (injunction against holding an election is outside the general scope of judicial power). “Texas law......