Hidalgo County Drain. Dist. v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 8765.
| Decision Date | 09 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 8765.,8765. |
| Citation | 47 S.W.2d 875 |
| Parties | HIDALGO COUNTY DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 1 et al. v. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Griffin, Kimbrough & Cox, of McAllen, and Bryce Ferguson, of Edinburg, for plaintiffs in error.
C. K. Richards, of Brownsville, for defendant in error.
This is an action initiated by defendant in error against Hidalgo county drainage district No. 1, and the county of Hidalgo, to recover the sum of $7,000, evidenced by seven warrants against the drainage district, which issued the warrants, and for a writ of mandamus as against the county to compel it to levy a tax on the district to provide for payment of the warrants. A trial resulted in a judgment on the warrants in the sum of $6,000, as against the drainage district, and in the issuance of a mandamus to Hidalgo county to levy a tax sufficient to pay off and discharge the amount of the warrants, interest, and attorney's fees. The evidence sustains the judgment.
The petition described the parties as: "Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1, a corporation, duly created under the laws of the State of Texas, in Hidalgo County aforesaid, with Ben F. Tucker, M. B. Gore and C. E. Bryan as its duly and legally acting commissioners, and Hidalgo County, a corporation, duly created under the laws of the State of Texas, with A. W. Cameron as County Judge of said county, and W. D. Chaddick, Marvin Evans, S. M. Hargrove, and W. L. Lipscomb, as Commissioners of Precincts Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively." This is undoubtedly a full and sufficient description of the parties sought to be affected by the suit, and a full compliance with the laws applicable to suits against municipal corporations. Process was prayed for against "defendant Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1, and that for the purpose of service, service may be had by serving citation upon its three commissioners above named; and that citation issue to Hidalgo County, and for the purpose of service, citation may be served upon its present county judge and members of the Commissioners' Court, as hereinbefore alleged." There is no question made as to the sufficiency of the citation to the county, but it is claimed that the citation to the drainage district, which commanded the sheriff "to summon Ben F. Tucker, M. B. Gore and C. E. Bryan, to be and appear before the Honorable 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, at the next regular term thereof to be holden at the Court House in Edinburg, on the 1st Monday in September, 1930, the same being the 1st day of September, A. D. 1930, then and there to answer the Plaintiff's Petition, filed in a suit in said Court on the 4th day of August, A. D. 1930, wherein Magnolia Petroleum Company is Plaintiff, and Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1, Ben F. Tucker, M. B. Gore and C. E. Bryan, its commissioners, * * * are Defendants was not sufficient."
The citation to the drainage district was probably technically insufficient, but no objection was urged to it in the district court, and an answer was filed by an attorney for the district, although the citation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delray Beach Aviation Corp. v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc.
...an appearance. Paradise v. Vogtlandische Maschinen-Fabrik (3d Cir. 1938), 99 F.2d 53, 55; Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1 v. Magnolia Petroleum Co. (Tex.Civ.App.1932), 47 S.W.2d 875 (error refused); Sloan v. Jepson (1934), 217 Iowa 1082, 252 N.W. 535. The presumption is especially st......
-
City of San Antonio v. Aguilar
...Bank of Birmingham, 597 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1980, no writ); Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1 v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 47 S.W.2d 875, 876 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1932, writ ref'd). Further, an attorney who has conducted a case in the trial court is presumed to ......
-
In re Fitzgerald
...Bank of Birmingham, 597 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1980, no writ); Hidalgo Cnty. Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 47 S.W.2d 875, 876 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1932, writ ref'd). This presumption prevails until it is conclusively shown by competent evidence that th......
-
West v. City Nat. Bank of Birmingham
...(5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 961, 89 S.Ct. 398, 21 L.Ed.2d 374 (1968); Hidalgo County Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 47 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1932, writ ref'd); United American Insurance Company v. Harp, 290 S.W.2d 392 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1956, ......