Moore v. Commissioners' Court
Decision Date | 10 February 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 5453.) |
Citation | 175 S.W. 849 |
Parties | MOORE v. COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF BELL COUNTY et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bell County; John D. Robinson, Judge.
Action by T. T. Moore against the Commissioners' Court of Bell County and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
A. W. Gibson, of Rogers, and Morrison & Lewis, of Cameron, for appellant. Lewis H. Jones, of Rogers, and W. O. Cox, of Temple for appellees.
T. T. Moore instituted an injunction suit, by which he sought to restrain the commissioners' court of Bell county from selling certain bonds which had been issued, and which he alleged were about to be sold by that court for road district No. 10 of Bell county; and he also sought to restrain the tax collector from collecting the taxes levied to pay interest and create a sinking fund for the redemption of the bonds. The district judge granted a temporary restraining order to remain in force until the 31st day of August, 1914, at which time the case was set for further hearing. The defendants filed an answer, but we do not deem it necessary to set out in full the pleadings of either party, and content ourselves with saying that the questions of law hereafter discussed were and are presented by the pleadings. At the time set there was a further hearing, as a result of which the trial court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive or other relief, and he has appealed.
The validity of the bonds and the levy of the taxes were assailed on the following grounds, as stated in appellant's brief.
All of the foregoing questions have been ably presented in this court by counsel for appellant, maintaining the affirmative, and by counsel for appellees, maintaining the negative. Each of these questions have received careful consideration at the hands of this court, and our conclusion is that the trial court ruled correctly when it decided the points referred to against appellant's contention, and some of the reasons for that conclusion will now be stated.
In 1904, section 52, title 3, of the Constitution of this state, was so amended as to confer power upon the Legislature to authorize any county, any political subdivision of the county, any number of adjoining counties, or any political subdivision of the state, "or any defined district now or hereafter to be described and defined within the state of Texas," in addition to all other debts, by a vote of two-thirds majority of the resident property tax-paying voters, to issue bonds or otherwise lend its credit in any amount, not to exceed one-fourth of the assessed valuation of the real property of such district or territory, for certain designated purposes, one of which is the construction, maintenance, and operation of roads and turnpikes, or in aid thereof. It is specifically stated in that article that the territory which might be authorized by the Legislature to issue bonds, etc., "may or may not include towns, villages or municipal corporations"; and it is also therein stated that the total bonded indebtedness of any city or town shall never exceed the limits imposed by other provisions of the Constitution. Acting under that constitutional provision, in 1909 the Legislature passed the road law, which now comprises articles 627 to 641, inclusive, of the present Revised Statutes. Article 627 reads as follows:
The other articles relating to that subject cover all the details necessary for the election and the issuance and sale of the bonds. It was under that law that the commissioners' court of Bell county was proceeding when this suit was instituted. The main question in this case, and the point which seems to be urged with greatest confidence by appellant, involves the construction to be placed upon the language of the Constitution, and also the statute, which reads, "or any defined district now or hereafter to be described and defined." Counsel for appellant contend that while that language in the Constitution may authorize the Legislature to create and define additional districts itself, or may authorize it to prescribe the mode and manner in which such districts may be created by the commissioners' court, before any action is taken looking to the issuance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Thompson
...raised. Under the act, road districts are not required to correspond with or to include any political subdivision. Moore v. Commissioners' Court (Tex. Civ. App.) 175 S. W. 849; Bell County v. Hines (Tex. Civ. App.) 219 S. W. 556. There is nothing in the law to guide or to limit the action o......
-
Browning v. Hooper
...raised. Under the act, road districts are not required to correspond with or to include any political subdivision. Moore v. Commissioners' Court (Tex. Civ. App.) 175 S. W. 849; Bell County v. Hines (Tex. Civ. App.) 219 S. W. 556. There is nothing in the law to guide or to limit the action o......
-
City of Vernon v. Montgomery
...in the absence of a showing that such a change is prejudicial, the court should not revise such action. Moore v. Commissioners' Court of Bell County (Tex. Civ. App.) 175 S. W. 849. If it were shown that the change was prejudicial, the city could rescind its action and make interest payable ......
-
City of Brownsville v. Wheeler, 11889.
...S.W. 1013; Holt v. State, Tex. Civ.App., 176 S.W. 743; Simmons v. Lightfoot, 105 Tex. 212, 146 S.W. 871; Moore v. Commissioners' Court of Bell County, Tex. Civ.App., 175 S.W. 849; Harris County Drainage District No. 12 v. City of Houston, Tex.Com.App., 35 S.W.2d If it be true that the levy ......