Mesquite Independent School Dist. v. Gross, 1732-6161.

Decision Date24 January 1934
Docket NumberNo. 1732-6161.,1732-6161.
PartiesMESQUITE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. GROSS.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Gerald L. Johnson and Renfro, Ledbetter & McCombs, all of Dallas, for appellant.

Muse & Muse, of Dallas, for appellee.

CRITZ, Judge.

This case is before the Supreme Court on certified questions from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth district at Dallas. The certificate states the case and the issues involved. It is as follows:

"The above styled and numbered cause is pending on submission in the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District of Texas, in which the judges of said court are unable to agree as to the disposition that should be made of same and deem it advisable to certify to the Honorable Supreme Court of Texas, because of the importance of the questions involved to the judicial procedure of the State, especially so in view of the decision rendered in the case of Geffert v. Yorktown Independent School District, by the Commission of Appeals, reported in 290 S. W. 1083, and because of the doubtful meaning of certain language of article 2790, R. S. 1925, viz: `The Board of Trustees shall thereafter annually levy and cause to be assessed and collected upon the taxable property in the limits of the district', as to whether or not, to comply with said provision, it is necessary for the Board of Trustees to enter a formal order.

"Statement of the Case

"Appellant brought its suit against appellee in the district court of Dallas County to recover school taxes in the sum of $57.12 for the year 1928, and for foreclosure of tax lien on certain real estate owned by appellee and situated within appellant's school district. Appellee answered by general denial and specially denied that the lands owned by him were within the boundaries of appellant school district, alleging same to be in the boundary of Balch Spring Common School District No. 26 of Dallas County, Texas. Appellant filed its supplemental petition, excepting in part to appellee's first amended original answer, for the reason that same made a collateral attack on the corporate existence of appellant as an independent school district; also plead estoppel against appellee, the effect of which plea will be fully presented in the statement of facts made herein. Appellee answered, that his actions did not constitute estoppel, the attempted annexation of his land and levy of taxes for 1928 both being void for want of jurisdiction.

"Disposition by Trial Court

"The trial court entered judgment in favor of appellee, that appellant take nothing by its suit.

"Facts

"On the trial the following facts, material to the questions submitted, were established: that appellant is an Independent School District in Dallas County; that appellee Gross and five other citizens of Dallas County presented the following petition to appellant's Board of School Trustees:

"`We, the undersigned, are the owners of the property set opposite our names and we hereby make application to be taken into the Mesquite Independent School District. The lands we own are adjacent to and joining the said Mesquite Independent School District, and all of said land is continuous there being no lands between ours and the said Mesquite Independent School District. All of said lands embraced in this petition are now in Common School District No. 26 (Balch Spring), and said land lies South of the Southern line of said Mesquite Independent School District, beginning with the property of J. G. Austin and being the balance of land owned by him that is not now in the limits of Mesquite Independent School District, then the land of A. D. Jones, Chas. E. Gross, W. E. Holland, Zell P. Howard, and J. O. Johnson, and being in all 292.83 acres of land.'

"(Here follows a description of thirteen tracts of land owned by the petitioners, including five owned by appellee, each tract being described only by stating the abstract number, certificate number, number of acres and name of survey. The territory proposed to be annexed was not fully described by metes and bounds—no description being given of the thirteen tracts of land, other than above stated). The petition closes with the following:

"`We, the undersigned, are the owners of the above described land and we petition your Honorable Body to annex our lands to the Mesquite Independent School District.'

"Appellant's trustees acted upon said petition as follows:

"`Motion carried made by Thompson and Gross to accept the petition of the Balch Springs School District, thereby annexing them with the Mesquite School District with valuation of land not to exceed $50.00 per acre for a period of one year, and that the tax assessor be notified to make such renditions as necessary to complete this work.'

"A copy of the resolution, containing a description of the added territory, was not filed for record in the County Clerk's office of Dallas County, in which the town of Mesquite is situated. After the passing of the above resolution, based on the petition for annexation, appellee handed a copy of said petition to the County Tax Assessor of Dallas County, who transferred the above tracts of land on the rolls from the Balch Springs Common School District to the Mesquite Independent School District. There was no petition of the people of the Balch Springs District to transfer, and there was no order of the Commissioners' Court transferring the tracts of land described in said petition to appellant school district. No action was taken by the Commissioners Court of Dallas County on said petition. Appellant district claimed to have levied taxes against appellee on his five tracts of land, described in said petition, for the years 1926, 1927 and 1928; appellee paid the taxes for 1926 and 1927, but refused to pay taxes for 1928, on account of which this suit was brought. Appellee signed the assessment of taxes for the year 1928 sued on, and, while living on the land included in said petition, sent his three children to appellant's school without transferring them, drew up a petition for a bond issue which was signed by him, and in the years 1927 and 1928 voted in the trustee's election.

"Appellant's claim for a tax levy for the year 1928 is based on the fact that, on September 26, 1927, the following transaction was had by appellant's board of trustees, in the matter of levying a tax, as shown by the minutes of said Board, viz:

"`The motion carried made by Reedy and Paschall that the school tax rate be raised by the Board from 80 cents to $1.00 on the $100 valuation and at the same time instructed the tax assessor to make up rolls of Taxes as soon as possible.'

"Under the above adopted motion, the levy and assessment of taxes for the year 1928, on lands within appellant school district, including the taxes involved in this suit, was made. All proceedings had since the adoption of said resolution in reference to the rendition of property for taxes within said district, including appellee's property, was in conformity with the law for the rendition of property for taxes. No other order was made or entered by said Board of Trustees for the levy, assessment and collection of taxes for the year 1928, on the property located in appellant's school district, subject to taxation.

"Questions

"Question No. 1. Are the requirements in Art. 2765 R. S. 1925, relating to extension of boundaries, jurisdictional—especially the following provisions of said article, stating the essential of the petition: (a) `Fully describing by metes and bounds the territory...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Lefler v. City of Dallas
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 17 Diciembre 1943
    ...fully set forth by calls for course and adjoinder. Of the cases cited by appellants, the description of land in Mesquite Indep. School Dist. v. Gross, 123 Tex. 49, 67 S.W.2d 242, was held defective because of no boundary lines; similarly, in Grand Lodge of Order of Sons of Hermann v. Curry,......
  • Brown v Blum
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 21 Diciembre 1999
    ...any time. See City of Sherman v. Hudman, 996 S.W.2d 904, 911 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1999, n. pet. h.) (citing Mesquite Indep. School Dist. v. Gross, 123 Tex. 49, 67 S.W.2d 242, 246 (1934)). An election is void when, for example, the contestants claim the City is wholly without authority to call ......
  • State ex rel. Texas City Independent School Dist. v. La Marque Independent School Dist.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 14 Mayo 1953
    ...decision of such County Board is final except in such gross abuses of its authority as constituted legal fraud. Mesquite I. S. D. v. Gross, 123 Tex. 49, 67 S.W.2d 242, 243; Patillo v. County School Trustees, Tex.Civ.App., 235 S.W.2d 924; Higginbotham v. Concho County School Trustees, Tex.Ci......
  • School Bd. of City of Marshall v. State by Criminal Dist. Atty. ex rel. Warbritton
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 15 Febrero 1961
    ...involved a taking of private property under the power of eminent domain. We also recognize the holding in Mesquite Independent School Dist. v. Gross, 123 Tex. 49, 67 S.W.2d 242, that the authority designated by the Legislature has no power to act if the petition is defective on its face. Th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT