Harper v. Thompson

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Walker
• Citation: Harper v. Thompson, 292 S.W. 263 (Tex. App. 1927)
• Decision Date: 04 March 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 1482.)
• Parties: HARPER et al. v. THOMPSON et al.

292 S.W. 263

HARPER et al. v. THOMPSON et al.

(No. 1482.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

March 4, 1927.

Rehearing Denied March 16, 1927.

Appeal from District Court, Angelina County; C. A. Hodges, Judge.

Suit by J. A. Thompson and others, as taxpayers of Angelina County, against A. O. Harper and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Harper & Harper and W. M. Harris, all of Dallas, and Geo. C. Johnson, of San Antonio, for appellants.

W. S. Poston, Fairchild & Redditt, and Mantooth & Denman, all of Lufkin, for appellees.

WALKER, J.

This suit was by appellees as taxpayers of Angelina county, Tex., to enjoin appellants from the execution of a contract with Angelina county to make a block map and abstract of Angelina county, showing all lands in the county and the amount of taxes due thereon, thereby proposing to aid the county in collecting its taxes. The principal ground relied upon by appellees for relief was that the contract had been let without due advertising, as required by the provisions of article 2368, Revised Statutes 1925. On a former appeal of this case, Harper v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.) 280 S. W. 861, complaining of the order of the district judge of Angelina county restraining appellants from executing the contract, we held that the uncontradicted evidence was to the effect that the contract for its due execution required technical knowledge and skill, and therefore did not come within the terms of article 2368. We further held, on the evidence before us on that appeal, that appellees did not have the legal right to prosecute the suit. On this finding we dissolved the temporary injunction and sent the case back for trial on its merits. The case is now before us upon such trial on the identical pleadings reviewed on the former appeal, but without a statement of facts. Judgment was rendered in favor of appellees, based on a jury's verdict that the contract did not require technical knowledge and skill. On that verdict judgment was entered enjoining the execution of the contract and declaring it void. Without a statement of facts, we cannot review the verdict of the jury. We did not find on the former appeal that the case had been fully developed — that is, that appellees had offered all the evidence at their command.

Appellants advance the proposition that our opinion on the former appeal is the law of this case, and that, having held that the contract, under the uncontradicted evidence, required technical knowledge and skill, the trial court was foreclosed on that issue and...