Hidalgo County Water Imp. Dist. No. 2 v. Blalock
Decision Date | 17 April 1957 |
Docket Number | No. A-6239,A-6239 |
Citation | 301 S.W.2d 593,157 Tex. 206 |
Parties | HIDALGO COUNTY WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 et al., Relators, v. Honorable W. R. BLALOCK, Judge of the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, et al., Respondents. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Sharpe, Cunningham & Garza, Browns ville, Gibbon, Klein & Ferrero, Harlingen, Crain & Colvin, San Benito, Sawnie B. Smith, Edinburg, Hill, Lochridge & King, Mission, Ewers, Cox., Toothaker, Elick & York, McAllen, Strickland, Wilkins, Hall & Mills, Mission, for relators.
W. R. Blalock, Judge of 93rd Judicial District Court, Mission, pro se, for respondents.
Will Wilson, Atty. Gen., James N. Ludlum, First Asst. Atty. Gen., James W Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of Texas.
By this original proceeding relators seek a writ of mandamus directing and requiring Honorable W. R. Blalock, Judge of the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, to proceed to the trial of cause No. B-20,576 on the docket of that court. The sole question involved is whether Judge Blalock is disqualified to try the case under Article V, Section 11, of our State Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St., more specifically under that provision thereof reading as follows: 'No judge shall sit in any case wherein he may be interested, * * *.' It is not claimed that he is disqualified on any other ground.
This court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a district judge to proceed to trial and judgment. Constitution of Texas, Article V, Section 3; Revised Civil Statutes, 1925, Articles 1733 and 1734. The Court of Civil Appeals also has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus for that purpose. Revised Civil Statutes, 1925, Article 1824, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1824.
In Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Watkins, 126 Tex. 116, 86 S.W.2d 1081, we announced the rule that, owing to the great volume of business coming before this court it will not entertain jurisdiction of an original mandamus proceeding in a case where like jurisdiction is conferred upon a Court of Civil Appeals, unless it is made to appear that relief was first sought in that court. That rule will not be followed in a case like the instant one, where the question involved is of great importance to the State as a whole. State v. Ferguson, 133 Tex. 60, 125 S.W.2d 272.
The relators are a number of water improvement districts and water control and improvement districts in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties. The respondents, besides Judge Blalock, are a number of water control and improvement districts, navigation districts, the City of Laredo, a number of citizens of Webb, Zapata, Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron Counties, and also the Board of Water Engineers of the State of Texas.
It is made to appear by the statement of Judge Blalock that he is the owner of a home in the city of Mission, consisting of four lots and a twenty-foot strip of land lying between two of the lots; that he has resided on said property as a home since three of the lots were acquired by him in 1939; and that his property also lies within one of the porciones which abut on the Rio Grande, his home being situated some three miles from the Rio Grande. Judge Blalock purchases water from Hidalgo County Water Control and Improvement District No. 14 for irrigating his lawn and certain citrus trees on the property, which trees serve the dual purpose of shade trees and trees which produce fruit, principally for family use. For that service he pays the District $5 each time he uses its water. He has installed an underground pipe line system to transport water directly from the District's canal to his property. His home id connected with the water system of the City of Mission and water for household purposes is supplied by the City. When water is not available in the District's canal to irrigate his lawn, he purchases water from the City of Mission to irrigate it. He considers the system which he has installed for irrigating with water purchased directly from the District to be more convenient, economical, and efficient than irrigating with water purchased from the City.
Judge Blalock's commendable attitude in the case is reflected by his reply to the Application for Mandamus, from which we quote:
At the hearing in which Judge Blalock announced his disqualification he made the following statement:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Valmont Plantations
... ... The State and numerous water districts assert their rights in the former ... 2 The appropriators protest that ... Page 855 ... 170, 11 S.W. 1078; Wilson v. Reeves County Water Imp. Dist. No. 1, Tex.Civ.App., 256 S.W ... argue that while the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, 9 Stat. 922, forbids a State's diminution of the ... No. 2 v. Blalock, 157 ... Page 886 ... Tex. 201, 301 S.W.2d ... ...
-
Monroe v. Blackmon
... ... District Court of Nueces County, Texas, Respondent ... No. 13-96-642-CV ... Thirteenth Court of Appeals, No. 96-0598. 2 ... On September 23, 1996, ... 930 S.W.2d 957, 959 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1996 orig. proceeding). Rule 18a(f) of the ... Hidalgo County Water Imp. Dist. No. 2 v. Blalock, 157 ... ...
-
A & T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp
... ... , 789 S.W.2d 704, 706 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding) (involving a TORA-based ... of state to file a corporate charter); County of Cameron v. Wilson, 160 Tex. 25, 326 S.W.2d 162 ... The statute 2 authorizes this court to issue writs of mandamus ... Hidalgo County Water Improvement Dist. No. 2 v. Blalock, ... ...
-
Sun Oil Co. v. Whitaker
... ... 1, that Sun's proposed use of water for waterflood purposes constituted statutory ... in a 267-acre tract of land in Hockley County. Sun acquired its lease on the property on April ... by Gann and his wife to Whitaker on January 2, 1948. The conveyance to Whitaker was subject to ... Hidalgo County Water Improvement Dist. No. 2 v. Blalock, ... ...