Prudential Ins. Co. v. Dallas County Levee Imp. Dist. No. 3.

• Decision Date: 26 May 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 1990.)
• Citation: 296 S.W. 974
• Parties: PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. DALLAS COUNTY LEVEE IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO 3.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

296 S.W. 974

PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. DALLAS COUNTY LEVEE IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO 3.

(No. 1990.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

May 26, 1927.

Rehearing Denied June 16, 1927.

Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Royall R. Watkins. Judge.

Suit by Dallas County Levee Improvement District No. 3 against the Prudential Insurance Company of America. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Lyle Saxon, of Dallas, for appellant.

Goree, Odell & Allen, of Fort Worth, and W. P. Dumas, E. E. Hurt, and Claude D. Bell, all of Dallas, for appellee.

HIGGINS, J.

Appellee, the Dallas county levee improvement district No. 3, was duly incorporated by order of the commissioners' court of Dallas county, under chapter 44, Acts Thirty-Fifth Legislature, Fourth Called Session, p. 97, commonly known as the Laney Act. Thereafter bonds of the district in the sum of $160,000 were regularly voted, issued and sold under the provisions of the act, and a tax levied to pay interest upon the bonds and create a sinking fund.

This suit was brought by appellee against the Prudential Insurance Company of America, appellant, and others not necessary to mention, to recover taxes for the years 1920-23, levied against a tract of land in the district now owned by appellant. As to the taxes for the years 1920 and 1921, the court sustained a plea of limitation and denied recovery thereof.

Judgment in plaintiff's favor was rendered for the taxes for the years 1922 and 1923, with foreclosure of lien, and the Prudential Insurance Company appeals.

The Laney Act was adopted under the authority of the Conservation Amendment to the Constitution (section 59, art. 16).

It is first asserted that it was not competent for the Legislature to delegate to the commissioners' court the power to create conservation and reclamation districts and levy taxes to pay for improvements therein as was done by the Laney Act, but that such districts could only be created and taxes levied directly by the Legislature.

In the absence of a state constitutional restriction it is competent for a Legislature to create such district directly, or as was provided by the Laney Act, by a proceeding before the commissioners' court in which the parties interested are cited to appear and present their objections. It is for the state to determine the method which it will pursue in creating such districts. Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist., 239 U. S. 254, 36 S. Ct. 58, 60 L. Ed. 266. There is nothing in our Constitution which forbids the delegation of power to create the district to the commissioners' court as was provided by the Laney Act.

The act in question is lengthy, and it will serve no useful purpose to summarize the same, but upon inspection thereof it will be found that ample provision is made for notice to and hearing of all parties interested in the formation of a proposed district. This being true, it was competent for the Legislature to delegate to the commissoners' court the power to create such district after such notice and hearing.

The Conservation Amendment itself declares that districts created thereunder shall be governmental agencies.

In reply to the various propositions submitted by appellant asserting that the tax is confiscatory and violative of the due process clause of the federal Constitution, it will be found by referring to the act in question that ample opportunity was...