Harding v. Commissioners' Court of McLennan County
| Decision Date | 30 October 1901 |
| Citation | 65 S.W. 56 |
| Parties | HARDING v. COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF McLENNAN COUNTY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Proceedings by R. Harding against the commissioners' court of McLennan county. Judgment in defendant's favor, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
E. E. Easterling, for plaintiff in error.
R. Harding, the plaintiff in error, instituted this proceeding against the commissioners' court of McLennan county to restrain that court from declaring the result of an election held under the local option liquor law. A temporary injunction was granted, but upon final hearing it was dissolved, and judgment rendered against the plaintiff.
The petition for the election, and the order made by the commissioners' court under which the election was held, described the territory as school districts Nos. 9 and 66, but followed such description with field notes giving specific boundaries; and the agreed facts upon which the case is submitted in this court show that school district No. 9 was not embraced in the territory described by metes and bounds, and that the territory so described included part of school districts Nos. 23 and 24, as well as district No. 66. It is contended by the plaintiff in error that the law did not authorize a local option election in the territory described by metes and bounds, and therefore the pretended election is null and void. The court below seems to have held otherwise, and decided the case against the plaintiff upon the theory that the election was valid.
We deem it unnecessary to decide that question, because, as the case is presented in this court, we think the proper judgment was rendered, conceding the plaintiff's contention as to the illegality of the election. No citizen is entitled to an injunction to prevent a criminal prosecution, however unfounded such prosecution may be, unless it is made to appear that some property right of his will be interfered with, and injury result therefrom, or that he will be harassed with a multiplicity of unfounded prosecutions. On this phase of the case the agreed facts are as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nims v. Gilmore
... ... J. M. GILMORE et al., Respondents Supreme Court of IdahoJanuary 26, 1910 ... LOCAL ... OPTION ... The ... decision in Gillesby v. Board of County Commissioners, ante, ... p. 586, holding local option ... secs. 20, 68, 272, 1244; 22 Cyc. 903; Harding v. Commrs ... Court, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 25, 65 S.W. 56; ... ...
-
Robinson & Watson v. Wingate
...prosecution on the ground that the law they seek to enforce is void. High on Injunctions, §§ 5, 68, 124, 157. In Harding v. Commissioners, 65 S. W. 56, 3 Tex. Ct. Rep. 162, Justice Key intimates that if the plaintiff in a proceeding of this sort should aver that the local option law is void......
-
Norton v. Alexander
...the case went to trial and the injunction was dissolved, which was after the time covered by the license had expired. Harding v. Commissioners (Tex. Civ. App.) 65 S. W. 56; Id. (Tex. Sup.) 66 S. W. 44; State v. Loomis (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 415, and cases there cited. See, also, Ex parte......
-
City of Galveston v. Mistrot
...multiplicity of suits is threatened. Wade v. Nunnelly, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 256, 46 S. W. 668. In the case of Harding v. Com'rs, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 25, 65 S. W. 56, 3 Tex. Ct. Rep. 162, it is intimated that equity might properly interfere in such cases if it is made to appear that the person se......