Jefferson County Water Control and Imp. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Port Arthur

• Decision Date: 22 July 1959
• Docket Number: No. A-7205,A-7205
• Citation: 160 Tex. 136,327 S.W.2d 415
• Parties: JEFFERSON COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5, Petitioner, v. CITY OF PORT ARTHUR et al., Respondents.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 415

327 S.W.2d 415

160 Tex. 136

JEFFERSON COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO 5, Petitioner, v. CITY OF PORT ARTHUR et al., Respondents.

No. A-7205.

Supreme Court of Texas.

July 22, 1959.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1959.

Chester C. Young and Cary Young, Port Arthur, Frank M. Adams, Beaumont, for petitioner.

Jack C. Voyles, Port Arthur, Hofheinz, Sears, James & Burns, Houston, for respondent.

HICKMAN, Chief Justice.

This is a suit for declaratory judgment brought by the City of Port Arthur, hereinafter called City, Lakeside Park, Ltd., and Jay's Mortgage and Finance Company, Inc., hereinafter called developers, for the construction of Article 1182c-1, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes. The construction sought by the plaintiffs, who are respondents in this court, was that the City has the lawful right to contract with the developers to furnish water and sewerage service to a subdivision being developed by them, located within the boundaries of both the City and the District, and that the District has no lawful right to interfere with or prevent the City from furnishing such services to such subdivision. The developers acquired a tract of 163 acres of land within the limits of the District, which they propose to subdivide and develop, and which was later annexed by the City. They desire to contract with the City to supply the subdivision with water and sewerage service, and the City has agreed to do so. The District provides water and sewerage service to the improved and inhibited portion thereof, but the 163-acre tract is unimproved and uninhabited.

The trial court granted the District's motion for summary judgment, which judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded by the Court of Civil Appeals. 320 S.W.2d 33.

The case turns upon the construction of Article 1182c-1, the relevant portions of which read as follows:

'When less than all of the territory within any such district is so annexed, the governing authorites of such city and district shall be authorized to enter into contracts in regard to the division and allocation of duplicate and overlapping powers, functions and duties between such agencies, and in regard to the use, management, control, purchase, conveyance, assumption and disposition of the properties, assets, debts, liabilities and obligations of such district. Any such district is expressly authorized to enter into agreements with such city for the operation of the district's utility systems and other properties...