Rodriguez v. Gonzales

• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HICKMAN
• Citation: Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 148 Tex. 537, 227 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. 1950)
• Decision Date: 22 February 1950
• Docket Number: No. A-2435,A-2435
• Parties: RODRIGUEZ, County Judge, et al. v. GONZALES et al.

Page 791

227 S.W.2d 791

148 Tex. 537

RODRIGUEZ, County Judge, et al. v. GONZALES et al.

No. A-2435.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1950.

L. Hamilton Lowe, Austin, A. J. Vale, Rio Grande City, for appellants.

H. P. Guerra, Jr., Rio Grande City, for H. P. Guerra, Sr.

John A. Pope, Jr., Rio Grande City, for appellees.

HICKMAN, Chief Justice.

This is a direct appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Starr County permanently enjoining the performance of a contract of employment entered into between the County and Oscar T. Vale. The plaintiffs in the trial court were E. G. Gonzales and two other resident, tax-paying citizens of Starr County. Their right to prosecute the suit is not questioned. The defendants were M. J. Rodriguez, County Judge of Starr County, three of the four County Commissioners (one of the Commissoners having made common cause with the plaintiffs), the County Treasurer, the County Auditor, Starr County as such, and Oscar T. Vale, attorney at law. The case is one in which a direct appeal is provided for in Section 3-b, Article V, Constitution of Texas, Vernon's Ann.St., Article 1738a, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., and Rule 499a, Texas Rules Civil Procedure.

The contract, the performance of which was enjoined by the trial court, was one of employment entered into between Starr County and Oscar T. Vale, a practicing attorney of that county, by the terms of which the attorney was employed to institute a suit to recover the taxes owing and delinquent against the tenants in common of Porcion No. 78, Ancient Jurisdiction of Camargo, Tamaulipas, Mixico, now in Starr County, Texas, and for a partition. The amount of delinquent taxes was approximately $3,500, exclusive of interest and penalties. By the terms of the contract the attorney was to receive a fee of $3,000 and the County was to pay all necessary expenses of litigation in addition to the fee. One-half of the fee was to be paid on execution of the contract and the balance upon the conclusion of the litigation. The County Auditor approved the contract and would have issued a warrant for $1,500 on the general fund of the County in favor of the attorney had not the performance of the contract been enjoined.

The contract was entered into under the provisions of House Bill No. 108, Acts of the Regular Session of the 51st Legislature, Ch. 404, pp. 754-755, Art. 7345e, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. The sole question for our decision is the constitutionality of that Act. The Act is as follows:

'Section 1. In any county bordering on the International Boundary between the United States and the Republic of Mexico, wherein there are located one (1) or more tracts of land, or portions thereof, having in excess of one thousand (1,000) acres, which such tracts are owned by ten (10) or more persons in undivided interests, the title to all or portions of which emanate from grants from the King of Spain, and on which there are delinquent taxes owed to such county, the Commissioners Court of any such county is hereby authorized to institute suits against such owners of undivided interests in such tract, or tracts, for the purpose of collecting such delinquent taxes, and it is expressly authorized to seek and compel a partition of said tracts between the owners thereof in order to segregate and identify the ownership for the purpose of collecting such delinquent taxes, and to employ attorneys for the purpose of instituting and prosecuting such suit, or suits, and to pay them such reasonable fees for such services out of the general fund of such county as said Commissioners Court may deem advisable. After the institution of such suits, the provisions of Section 15 of Article 7345b, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, as amended by the Acts of the Regular Session of the Forty-ninth Legislature, 1945, Chapter 219, shall govern the procedure in such suit, in so far as applicable, and all fees and costs therein provided for shall be in addition to the fees herein authorized for the institution of such suit, or suits.

'Sec. 2. The provisions of this Act shall be cumulative of all existing laws providing for the collection of delinquent taxes and the partitioning of land by suit, or otherwise, except in so far as said existing laws conflict herewith, and all laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby expressly repealed to the extent of such conflict.'

The section of the Constitution of which the Act was held by the trial court to be violative is Section 56 of Article III, the relevant portions of which are:

'Sec. 56. The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law * * * regulating the affairs of counties, cities, towns, wards or school districts; * * *

'And in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no local or special law shall be enacted; * * *.'

The primary purpose back of the adoption of this section was to secure that uniformity in the application of law which is essential to an ordered society. The section is not of doubtful construction, but is a plain mandate from the people to the Legislature. The prohibition is against any 'local or special law.' We are not concerned with any distinctions which may be drawn between a local law and a special law, for in our opinion the Act under review is both a local and a special law within the meaning of the constitutional provision. This is so clear to our minds that we shall not discuss the question at length.

The primary and ultimate test of whether a law is general or special is whether there is a reasonable basis for the classification...