Ex Parte Richards, 7888.

• Decision Date: 29 October 1941
• Docket Number: No. 7888.,7888.
• Citation: 155 S.W.2d 597
• Parties: Ex parte RICHARDS et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 597

155 S.W.2d 597

Ex parte RICHARDS et al.

No. 7888.

Supreme Court of Texas.

October 29, 1941.

Original habeas corpus proceeding by W. E. Richards and others for release from custody under an attachment and bench warrant directing relators to show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt for violating a restraining order.

Relators discharged.

Smith & Nielsen, of Raymondville, and Sawnie B. Smith, of Edinburg, for relators.

Crane & Glarner and Jesse G. Foster, all of Raymondville, for defendants.

SHARPE, Justice.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding. The question presented involves the power of the Criminal District Court of Willacy County, created by the 39th Legislature, Article 199, Section 28, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, to punish for contempt for the violation of a temporary restraining order, issued by the court, growing out of a cross-action filed in a suit pending in such court for the collection of delinquent taxes.

The Willacy County Water Control & Improvement District No. 1 filed a tax suit in the Criminal District Court of Willacy County, Texas, against Michael Nussbaum, Art Baughman, and others. This suit was for the collection of delinquent taxes due such district. The defendants in such suit filed an answer and cross-action, consisting of a general demurrer, general denial, and by way of cross-action against the plaintiff district and W. E. Richards, Albert Hughes, Ed Pinkston, and M. A. Hickey, four of the directors of said district, said defendants alleged in substance:

1. That said district was a quasi municipal corporation, embracing approximately 125,000 acres of land in Willacy and Hidalgo counties, and having its present domicile and place of business in Raymondville, Willacy County.

2. That the four individual cross-defendants, together with Art Baughman, constitute the officers and directors of said district.

3. That the individual cross-defendants, over the protest of said Baughman, entered an order on August 18, 1941, whereby they proposed to "and will, unless stopped by orders of the Court," move the office and equipment from Raymondville to a site about 25 miles southwest of its present location.

4. That said district has now invested about $12,000 in land and an office building, with fire-proof vault, etc., at the present location; said building being a substantial structure, with plenty of space to fully accommodate the employees as well as the taxpayers and the public generally; and in addition to said main office building there are two sheet iron buildings, where trucks, cars, and other necessary equipment can be maintained, as well as a heavy iron fence, costing about $1,500, around the said buildings. That said present location is located on a paved highway, close to the town of Raymondville, and is the most centrally located site in said district, easily accessible to all of the taxpayers; and said buildings are sufficient for the storing of all records of said district, where they will be well protected from fire and theft, and from being lost and misplaced. That said building is equipped with adequate telephone and telegraph service.

5. That the proposed new location is wholly inadequate to accommodate the business of said district, in that the same has insufficient room, and that the district would be forced to build extensive new construction to take care of the employees and furnish office space for them, and to provide safe keeping of the records and the housing of trucks, cars, and other equipment, all of which would cost an enormous sum of money. That the defendants, who are taxpayers, will be forced to contribute to such waste of money, and the taxes which plaintiff is seeking to collect herein will be squandered. That, in addition, the district will be forced to provide places for the accommodation of the employees, as well as the public, at an extra expense, which will have to be borne by said district. That these defendants and taxpayers will be forced to travel unnecessary long distances in getting to and from said office to transact business. That at said new location there is only a small frame house, about 5 miles from a concrete road, served by a very poor dirt road, practically impassable in bad weather.

6. That said district, through its said main officers, is now making immediate preparations to start moving said office and equipment, and that plaintiff and its said officers will accomplish the purpose and carry out the terms of said order unless the court temporarily restrains them.

Defendants prayed that the court restrain and enjoin said plaintiff and its said directors, pending a hearing herein, and that on hearing they be temporarily enjoined from putting into effect the order as passed on the 18th day of August, 1941. Upon presentation of the answer and cross-action to the judge of said court, said judge endorsed thereon an order reading in its pertinent parts as follows: "The above and foregoing answer and cross action having been presented to and heard by the Judge of the Criminal District Court of Willacy County, Texas, at Chambers this 20th day of August, A.D.1941, and it appearing to him from the facts therein stated that the applicant is entitled to a temporary restraining order that same is within complainants, allegations and prays that delay will not be injurious to either party and that justice may be subserved thereby and that the taxes involved in this law suit as well as numerous other tax suits pending may be adequately protected it is accordingly ordered that the Clerk of this Court issue a temporary restraining order operative until and pending the hearing below ordered restraining the plaintiff and its said four directors, to-wit: Albert Hughes, M. A. Hickey, Ed Pinkston and W. E. Richards from putting into effect or carrying out or attempting to in any way move the office and the equipment of said water district from its present location in the City of Raymondville to said proposed site the said Second Relift Pumping Plant upon the complainants executing in behalf of the plaintiff and said directors a bond," etc.

On August 23, 1941, Art Baughman, one of the defendants and cross-plaintiffs in the tax suit, filed an affidavit with the judge of the Criminal District Court of Willacy County, in which he recited to the court that on August 22, 1941, the directors had moved the equipment in violation of the court's order, and prayed that the directors be ordered to...