Pennington v. City of Corpus Christi

Decision Date12 December 1962
Docket NumberNo. 14012,14012
Citation363 S.W.2d 502
PartiesJohn R. PENNINGTON et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas, et al., Appellees.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Sidney P. Chandler, Corpus Christi, for appellants.

I. M. Singer, James P. Ryan, Corpus Christi, for appellees.

MURRAY, Chief Justice.

This suit involves an area of land adjacent to the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, generally known as the Flour Bluff area. More specifically, it involves the question of whether the City of Corpus Christi has a prior right to annex this territory or whether certain citizens have a prior right to incorporate such territory into a municipal corporation.

The City of Corpus Christi on January 4, 1961, received a petition for annexation, describing the Flour Bluff area adjacent to the City, which at the time was not a part of any other incorporated city then in existence or in the process of incorporation. The City Council thereafter determined that this petition was sufficient under the provisions of the City Charter, and called an election in keeping with the petition. An election was duly held and the question of annexation was carried by a majority vote, and the City Council passed an ordinance annexing said territory to the City of Corpus Christi. These proceedings conclusively and legally annexed this territory to the City, unless the appellants herein had a prior right to incorporate it into a municipal corporation by filing with the County Judge of Nueces County, Texas, a petition for an election to incorporate this same territory.

The petition to annex was filed with the City Council on January 4, 1961. Some six months later, on July 11, 1961, the petition for an election was filed with the County Judge. The following day, July 12, the City Council passed an ordinance finding that the petition was signed by not less than ten per cent of the qualified voters residing in the area proposed to be annexed, that the area was contiguous and adjacent to the existing corporate limits of the City, and ordering an election to be held on August 5, 1961, on the question of annexation.

On July 11, 1961, the same day the petition for incorporation was presented to him, the County Judge ordered an election to be held, also on August 5, 1961, to determine the question of incorporation.

It is apparent that this territory cannot legally be annexed to the City of Corpus Christi and at the same time be incorporated as a new municipal corporation. Thus, the question of priority of rights is here presented.

The trial was to a jury, which found by its answers to questions submitted, (1) that after the filing of said petition on January 4, 1961, the petitioners did not, in good faith, pursue and prosecute said petition in the City Council between said date and July 10, 1961; (2) that between January 4, 1961, and July 10, 1961, the Corpus Christi City Council did not abandon the proposed annexation of the Flour Bluff area; (3) that the description of the territory proposed to be annexed, as contained in the ordinance calling the annexation election in the City of Corpus Christi for August 5, 1961, is not so indefinite...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • City of Corpus Christi v. Arnold
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 25 Enero 1968
    ...Christi of what we shall designate as the Flour Bluff area. For litigation concerning such annexation, see Pennington v. City of Corpus Christi, Tex.Civ.App., (1962), 363 S.W.2d 502, wr. ref. n.r.e., cert. denied, 375 U.S. 439, 84 S.Ct. 507, 11 L.Ed.2d 471; Winship v. City of Corpus Christi......
  • City of La Porte v. State ex rel. Rose
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 18 Marzo 1964
    ...accord with the long line of Texas decisions upholding the prior rights of the city that has acted prior in time is Pennington v. Corpus Christi, Tex.Civ.App., 363 S.W.2d 502, reh. denied, January 9, 1963. Also see Mallow v. City of Denton, Tex.Civ.App., 356 S.W.2d 707, writ refused, n. r. ......
  • Hammonds v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas, Civ. A. No. 64-C-2.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 7 Febrero 1964
    ...of said ordinances was attacked by the same attorney representing the Plaintiffs here were the cases of Pennington et al. v. City of Corpus Christi, Tex.Civ.App., 363 S.W.2d 502, and W.L.D. Winship et al. v. City of Corpus Christi Case No. 15 of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Thirteenth......
  • Hammonds v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 27 Abril 1965
    ...— error ref'd n. r. e. by Tex.Sup.Ct.) (Appeal pending in U. S. Supreme Court); Pennington et al. v. City of Corpus Christi, 363 S.W.2d 502 (Tex.Civ.App.1962 — error ref'd n. r. e.) (Appeal dismissed by U. S. Supreme Court, 375 U.S. 439, 84 S.Ct. 507, 11 L.Ed.2d 471). The only limitation un......
  • 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