Ridgway v. City of Fort Worth
Decision Date | 06 May 1922 |
Docket Number | (No. 9967.) |
Citation | 243 S.W. 740 |
Parties | RIDGWAY v. CITY OF FORT WORTH et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; Bruce Young, Judge.
Application for writ of mandamus, brought to the county court of Tarrant county, on the relation of R. Bonna Ridgway, against the City of Fort Worth and others, to compel the board of commissioners of the city to restore him to office. Upon issues joined and a trial upon the merits, judgment was rendered denying the relief sought, from which relator appeals. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded, with instructions to issue the writ as prayed.
Ocie Speer, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Rhineheart Rouer, Gillis Johnson, Miller & Miller, and Rowland & Brown, all of Fort Worth, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment denying the prayer of R. Bonna Ridgway for the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the board of commissioners of the city of Fort Worth to restore him to office. In his petition for the writ it was alleged, and the facts so show, that the relator R. Bonna Ridgway had been legally appointed, on the 16th day of April, 1921, to the office of corporation counsel for the city of Fort Worth; that he duly qualified as such and entered upon the duties of such office; that afterwards, on or about July 9, 1921, the board of commissioners of said city, composed of respondents E. R. Cockrell, mayor, W. B. Townsend, Paul Gilvin, J. C. Lord, R. A. Hunter, and John Alderman, commissioners, passed a resolution removing the relator from office. The resolution so passed will be found in the trial court's conclusions of fact hereinafter copied.
It was further alleged by the relator that he was in all things competent to fill his said position and capable of performing the duties thereof satisfactorily, and that said order was induced by the personal ill will of the members of said board; that at and prior to the passage of said resolution no charges other than as presented in the resolution had been filed before the board of commissioners, nor had relator been served with a copy of any charge, nor was there any setting of the case, nor any opportunity given to relator for a hearing; that there was no trial of any sort and no evidence heard, but that the board attempted to remove the relator under what they contend to be a discretion lodged with them by the terms of the charter of the city of Fort Worth.
It was further alleged that from and after the passage of the resolution above mentioned the board of commissioners had refused to recognize the relator as corporation counsel for the city of Fort Worth, and he accordingly prayed for the issuance of the writ of mandamus to compel his restoration to office.
The respondents above named appeared and answered, expressly admitting the corporate existence of the city, the election and qualification of the respondents as mayor and commissioners, and also admitted the relator's appointment and qualification as corporation counsel, as alleged by him, and the passage of the removal order. The respondents denied, however, that the order of removal was dictated by any personal ill will or spite, but alleged that it had been so made and entered in good faith, and because of the relator's incompetency in particulars specifically set forth in the answer.
Upon the issues thus joined, a trial upon the merits was regularly had before the court, and judgment was entered, denying the relief sought, from which judgment, as already stated, the relator has duly prosecuted this appeal.
There is no statement of facts, and the case is submitted to us upon the court's written findings of fact and conclusions of law, which read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State, on Inf. of McKittrick v. Williams
... ... Co., 169 S.W. 145, 260 ... Mo. 276; State ex inf. Otto v. Kansas City College of ... Medicine & Surgery, 315 Mo. 101, 285 S.W. 980; 96 A. L ... Civil Service Commrs., ... 243 Ky. 415, 48 S.W.2d 1055; Ridgway v. Fort Worth, ... 243 S.W. 740; Sharp v. Jones, 100 W.Va. 662, 131 ... ...
-
State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, 36718.
...Bregel v. Newport, 208 Ky. 581, 271 S.W. 665; Armstrong v. Civil Service Commrs., 243 Ky. 415, 48 S.W. (2d) 1055; Ridgway v. Fort Worth, 243 S.W. 740; Sharp v. Jones, 100 W. Va. 662, 131 S.E. 463. (a) The Missouri Constitution provides for the removal on the ground of malfeasance in office ......
-
State ex rel. Hamilton v. Kansas City
...of this provision was and is to afford the employee an opportunity to be heard. Truitt v. Philadelphia, 221 Pa. St. 331, 339; Ridgeway v. Fort Worth, 243 S.W. 748. (4) No charges against relator were served and no reasons given for the removal until after this suit was filed. Exhibit 3, ass......
-
Rockefeller v. Hogue, 5--4594
...means necessary to effectuate the power. State v. Walbridge, 119 Mo. 383, 24 S.W. 457, 41 Am.St.Rep. 663 (1893); Ridgway v. City of Fort Worth, 243 S.W. 740 (Tex.Civ.App.1922); Dullam v. Willson, 53 Mich. 392, 19 N.W. 112, 51 Am.Rep. 128 One other argument of appellees that deserves conside......