Minthorn v. Hale

• Decision Date: 07 November 1963
• Docket Number: No. 6670,6670
• Citation: 372 S.W.2d 752
• Parties: C. L. MINTHORN et al., Appellants, v. J. O. HALE, as Mayor of the City of Daisetta, Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 752

372 S.W.2d 752

C. L. MINTHORN et al., Appellants, v. J. O. HALE, as Mayor of the City of Daisetta, Texas Appellee.

No. 6670.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Beaumont.

Nov. 7, 1963.

Cain & Cain, Liberty, for appellants.

Zbranek & Friend, Liberty, for appellee.

STEPHENSON, Justice.

This is a contest of a special election held to determine if reveneu and tax bonds should be issued by the City of Daisetta. Trial was before the court, and judgment was entered denying the contest.

The parties stipulated in the trial court as follows:

'(1) That prior to and at the time of said election:

(a) No City tax levy had been made,

(b) None of the citizens of said City had rendered their property for City taxation,

(c) None of such property had been placed on its tax rolls, rendered or unrendered, nor was any such rendition thereof required, and

(d) No tax rolls or other records existed which would identify such owners.

'(2) That said city was incorporated on April 22, 1961, and was operating under the General Laws of Texas.

'(3) That the resolution calling the election, and the published notice contained the following:

"at which election there shall be submitted to the duly qualified resident electors of said city who own taxable property within said City and who have duly rendered the same for taxation'.'

The electors voted favorably to the issuance of all bonds, but no proposition carried by more than 69 votes. 261 electors voted, which left more than 85 who did not vote.

It is the contention of the contestants that the election is void because the resolution calling the election and the public notice called for the wrong electorate. That, inasmuch as no one had rendered their property for taxation, the resolution and notice, as given, could not be complied with.

Both the Constitution of the State of Texas in Art. 6, Sec. 3a, Vernon's Ann.St., and the Texas Election Code, Art. 5.03, V.A.T.S., each provide in identical wording, that in elections held for the purpose of issuing bonds or otherwise lending credit, or expending money or assuming any debt, only qualified electors who own taxable property and who have duly rendered the same for taxation shall be qualified to vote.

The application of these provisions has been construed in several cases. In the case of Hanson v. Jordan, 145 Tex. 320, 198 S.W.2d 262, an election for issuing bonds in the City of Cleveland, was contested. In the Hanson Case, no taxes had been collected, and no property rendered for taxes, prior to the election. It was contended in the Hanson Case, supra, that no citizen was qualified to vote in the election because no one had rendered his property for taxation. The notices given by the City of Cleveland, and by the City of Daisetta, were identical. The Supreme Court denied the contest in the Hanson Case, supra, and held the electors were qualified to vote even though they had not rendered their property for taxation. The question raised in the present case was not directly before the court in the Hanson Case, supra, and...