Harper v. City of Wichita Falls
Decision Date | 23 April 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 13673.,13673. |
Citation | 105 S.W.2d 743 |
Parties | HARPER v. CITY OF WICHITA FALLS et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; Irvin J. Vogel, Judge.
Suit by W. R. Harper against the City of Wichita Falls and another. From an adverse order, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
B. D. Sartin and H. L. Ratliff, both of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
T. A. Hicks and Thelbert Martin, both of Wichita Falls, for appellee City of Wichita Falls.
J. T. Montgomery, of Wichita Falls, and Sewall Myer, of Houston, for appellee Parkrite Corporation.
R. R. Lewis and George D. Neal, both of Houston, and H. P. Kucera, A. J. Thuss, and J. Manuel Hoppenstein, all of Dallas, amici curiæ.
The above entitled cause was instituted by W. R. Harper against the City of Wichita Falls to enjoin the enforcement of certain parking meter ordinances passed by the city, attached as exhibits to the petition and hereinafter copied. The Parkrite Corporation also was made a defendant, and plaintiff prayed for a mandatory writ requiring it to remove the parking meters it had installed pursuant to authority from the city under its contract to purchase them from the Parkrite Corporation. Plaintiff's application for the issuance of a temporary writ of injunction, restraining enforcement of the ordinance during pendency of the suit for trial on its merits, was refused by the trial court, and this appeal is from that order.
Following are the ordinances in question:
Following those recitals are provisions setting apart as a parking meter zone both sides of several streets in the city, including Scott avenue, and providing for a designation of spaces for parking of vehicles and for the installation and operation of parking meters, such spaces to be indicated by painted lines upon the surface of the street within the parking meter zone; the parking meters to be placed upon the curb adjacent to and alongside of the individual marked spaces to be identified, and with signal devices indicating whether or not the parking space is then in use. There were further provisions that a charge of 5 cents would be made for the use of a parking space, to be paid by a deposit of a 5-cent coin in the meter which would cover the right to use the parking space for a period of one hour. The hours within which the fee would be required would be between 8:30 a. m. and 6:30 p. m. on any day except Sundays and holidays, when officially designated by the board of aldermen as such. It was made an offense punishable by fine not less than $5 nor more than $100 for the occupancy of any parking space so designated beyond the limit of time so fixed, but that the same would not apply to a temporary stopping of such vehicle for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading passengers or merchandise, or involuntary stopping of a vehicle out of control of the occupant; nor to vehicles of police or fire department of the city.
By Ordinance 1244 the fine for violating the provisions of Ordinance 1243 was changed to not less than $1 nor more than $100; and by ordinance 1249 the time limit for occupancy of parking meter space was changed from one hour to two hours.
It was further provided in the ordinance that the parking meters should be paid for exclusively from the receipts of the meters and the City of Wichita Falls would in no way be obligated to pay the same out of any other funds, moneys, or revenues, of the city, and that said funds should never be considered in determining the constitutional statutory and other legal limitations imposed by the city with respect to its power to create debts.
By section 24 of the ordinance the city clerk should collect from the parking meters the funds therein contained and deposit the same to the credit of the city in the city depository in a special fund called "Parking Meter Fund," and that same
The city's contract with the Parkrite Corporation stipulated for purchase by the city from that corporation of 500 complete parking meters for the price of "$58.00 net per meter, completely installed and placed in operation on the streets or sidewalks of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas."
The city agreed to pass ordinances establishing zones for installation of the meters in its business district and for regulation and control of their use, requiring deposit of a 5-cent fee, and fixing and defining parking spaces, and limiting time of parking. The meters were to be operated by the city. Seventy-five per cent. of the fees collected would be turned over to the Parkrite Corporation to be applied on the purchase price of the meters; the remaining 25 per cent. to be kept by the city to pay for expenses of collection and regulation and control of traffic. After payment of the full purchase price, the meters belong to the city. The Parkrite Corporation expressly agreed to look solely to the fees so collected through the meters for their purchase price and would make no claim for such payment out of any other resources of the city. It agreed further to execute a bond to protect the city from any damages growing out of the installation of the meters.
It was alleged in plaintiff's petition that he was engaged in the jewelry business, occupying a leased store fronting on Scott avenue, one of the public streets of the city and included in the district set apart by the city for the maintenance of the parking meters. He has followed the same business in that location for several years. Along Scott avenue parking meters have been erected, one of which is immediately in front of plaintiff's store.
Plaintiff further alleged that the ordinance was a zoning ordinance within the meaning of article 1011d, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, and was void for failure of the city to publish prior notice of its passage, as required by the provisions of that statute.
It was further averred that for years prior to the passage of the ordinance parking on the public streets had been regulated by the usual designation of marks and signs, indicating parking spaces and limitations of two hours for which they could be occupied, all without the use of parking meters and without charge for such occupancy; that there is no proper relation between the erection and operation of the parking meters and the authority vested in the city by its charter and statutes for the control of its public...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Foster's Inc. v. Boise City
...and thus create a greater movement of traffic." Texas, Ex Parte Harrison, 135 Tex. Crim. 611, 122 S.W.2d 314; Harper v. City of Wichita Falls, Tex. Civ. App., 105 S.W.2d 743; West Virginia, County Court of Webster County v. Roman, 121 W.Va. 381, 3 S.E.2d 631; South Carolina, in Owens v. Owe......
-
City of Decatur v. Robinson, 8 Div. 431.
... ... 945, 11 N.Y.S.2d 694; Webster County Court v ... Roman, 121 W.Va. 381, 3 S.E.2d 631; Harper v. City ... of Wichita Falls, Tex.Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 743; City ... of Columbus v. Ward, 65 ... ...
-
City of Clayton v. Nemours
... ... City of Clayton, ... supra; City of Clayton v. Nemours, supra; Harper v ... Wichita Falls, 105 S.W.2d 743; Giesey v ... Village, 11 N.Y.S. (2d) 694; People v. Propp, ... ...
-
Nemours v. City of Clayton
... ... do such regulations deprive such owner of his rights in the ... street. Harper v. Wichita Falls (Tex.), 105 S.W.2d ... 743; Gilsey v. Village, 11 N.Y.S. (2d) 694; ... ...