Hazelwood v. City of Cooper, 4984.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 4984.,4984. |
| Citation | 87 S.W.2d 776 |
| Parties | HAZELWOOD v. CITY OF COOPER et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Delta County; I. N. Williams, Judge.
Suit by W. C. Hazelwood against the City of Cooper and others. From a judgment dismissing his suit, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Long & Wortham and Hutchison & Fisher, all of Paris, for appellant.
McKinney & Berry, of Cooper, and Weatherby & Rogers, of Waco, for appellees.
On February 11, 1935, appellant, W. C. Hazelwood, filed suit in the district court of Delta county, Tex., against the city of Cooper, its governing body, the Central Engineering & Supply Company, and A. D. Martin, appellees, seeking to enjoin the execution and performance of a contract between said city and the Central Engineering & Supply Company for the construction of a municipal electric light and power plant, and also to enjoin the execution of a proposed bond issue and proposed mortgage securing same. In said mortgage A. D. Martin was named as trustee.
Appellant alleged that the contract, bond, and bond-mortgage were illegal, and would be executed and performed unless restrained by the district court. He also alleged he was a taxpayer and a user of electric current, and, as such, would suffer damages for which he had no adequate remedy at law. Appellant sought a temporary injunction in the first instance and asked upon hearing the same be made permanent. Appellant alleged in detail the acts of the city of Cooper and its governing body with reference to the proposed contract with the Central Engineering & Supply Company, and in his petition set out the steps taken by the city and its governing body under articles 1111 to 1118, Revised Statutes of Texas, as amended (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. arts. 1111-1118), to construct and put into operation a municipal electric power plant in said city, setting up, among other things, the provisions of the article of the statutes, that the holder of said bonds should never have the right to demand payment of the obligation out of any fund raised, or to be raised, by taxation. This statement, his petition alleges, was contained in the notice of election submitting this proposition of issuance of bonds to the voters of the city of Cooper and was contained in the bonds. He alleged further that at said election a majority voted for the issuance of bonds. He charges various irregularities in the preliminary steps taken by the city with reference to entering into the contract with the Central Engineering & Supply Company, which will not be set out here.
The appellees answered by a general demurrer, plea in abatement, and numerous special exceptions. The trial court sustained the general demurrer and several special exceptions to appellant's petition, but overruled appellees' plea in abatement. Appellant refused to amend and his cause was dismissed.
From this action of the trial court, appellant prosecutes this appeal. Appellant brings forward several bills of exceptions, all complaining of the action of the trial court in sustaining appellees' general demurrer to the petition, and appellees bring forward certain cross-assignments, complaining of the action of the trial court in overruling and not sustaining their plea in abatement.
It appears from the application of appellees to dismiss this case that the power plant is now in operation, therefore this case becomes moot except as to the payment of the bonds out of the proceeds derived from the operation of said light plant.
It is apparent from a study of the petition of the appellant, as well as from his brief filed in this cause, that he bases his right to bring this cause of action on the fact "that he is a long-resident, property-owning taxpayer of the city of Cooper, Delta county, Texas; that he is likewise a user of electric current for himself and family and in his business, in the conduct and operation of a hotel in the city of Cooper," as provided in section 9 of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Utah Power & Light Co. v. Ogden City
... ... , 4 Cir., ... 81 F.2d 986; Hoyt v. Trustees , 96 Colo ... 442, 44 P.2d 513; Hazelwood v. City of ... Cooper , Tex. Civ. App., 87 S.W.2d 776; Northwestern ... Light & Power Co. v ... ...
-
Franks v. Welch, 14569
...594, Tex.Civ.App.1954, no writ hist.; Fisher v. City of Bartlett, Tex.Civ.App.1934, 76 S.W.2d 535, error dism.; Hazelwood v. City of Cooper, Tex.Civ.App.1935, 87 S.W.2d 776, error ref.; West Texas Utilities Co. v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App.1943, 168 S.W.2d 665, error ref.; Powell v. City of Baird,......
-
Powell v. City of Baird, 2032.
...contentions so earnestly made by them, and that such decision has the approval of the Supreme Court of Texas. In Hazelwood v. City of Cooper, Tex. Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 776, writ refused, Hazelwood filed suit against the City of Cooper, its governing body and the Central Engineering & Supply ......
-
City of El Paso v. Waterblasting Techs., Inc.
...any injuries as the result of the contract award).The only case that the City cites to the contrary is Hazelwood v. City of Cooper, 87 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.Civ.App.–Texarkana 1935, writ ref'd), in which the court reviewed the language used in the Bond and Warrant Act of 1931 in its entirety, and......