Scroggins v. City of Harlingen
Decision Date | 09 February 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 7260.,7260. |
Citation | 112 S.W.2d 1035 |
Parties | SCROGGINS v. CITY OF HARLINGEN. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Carter & Stiernberg, of Harlingen, and A. J. Rabel, of Alice, for plaintiff in error.
Polk Hornaday, Arthur Klein, and Hornaday & Klein, all of Harlingen, for defendant in error.
The sole question presented in this case involves the liability of a municipal corporation for injuries sustained by a person by reason of the defective condition of an amusement device operated for profit in a public park owned by such municipal corporation.
Fred R. Scroggins brought this suit against the City of Harlingen and a group of other defendants, designated herein as the Carnival Company, for injuries received by him when he was riding on an amusement device known as the "Merry Mix-up," being operated by the Carnival Company on a city-owned park as a part of the annual midwinter fair, which Scroggins claims was conducted by the city through the agency or instrumentality of its chamber of commerce and the latter's secretary, and alleged to have been supported by the city. Scroggins recovered judgment for $10,000 against the defendants. The City of Harlingen alone appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals at San Antonio, and the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the cause remanded, because that court held that the acts of the city officials were ultra vires and the City of Harlingen was not responsible therefor. 101 S.W.2d 632, 633. This court granted a writ of error on the application of Scroggins.
It is contended that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that the undertaking described in plaintiff's petition was beyond any authority found in the home rule charter of the City of Harlingen, and in holding that the trial court erred in not sustaining a general demurrer to such petition, on the ground that the acts of the city officials were ultra vires, and the city should not be held liable for their acts.
This record is very voluminous. The Court of Civil Appeals in its opinion sets out in detail the substance of the pleadings, and we refer to such opinion for a more detailed statement of the general nature of this case. We shall state, however, such facts and pleadings as are pertinent to a decision of the question before us. The Court of Civil Appeals in its opinion clearly stated the issues presented and the findings of the jury. We adopt from the opinion the following statement:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Fleming
...constitute taxes that can only be exacted under a governmental-power plainly conferred upon it for that purpose. Scroggins v. City of Harlingen, Tex.Sup., 112 S.W.2d 1035, former opinion adhered to, but remanded for determination of other issues, Tex.Sup., 114 S.W.2d 853; Wiggins v. City of......
-
Cone v. City of Lubbock
...only of those within its corporate limits, and not as an arm of the State, is not protected by immunity. Scroggins v. City of Harlingen, 131 Tex. 237, 112 S.W.2d 1035 (1938); City of Waco v. Branch, 117 Tex. 394, 5 S.W.2d 498 (1928, opinion adopted); City of Amarillo v. Ware, 120 Tex. 456, ......
-
Pontarelli Trust v. City of McAllen
...employees in the performance of those duties. City of Austin v. Daniels, 160 Tex . 628, 335 S.W.2d 753 (1960); Scroggins v. City of Harlingen, 131 Tex. 237, 112 S.W.2d 1035, 114 S.W.2d 853 (1938); City of Dallas v. Smith, 130 Tex. 225, 107 S.W.2d 872 (1937); Gartman v. City of McAllen, 130 ......
-
City of Houston v. Quinones
...corporate limits, and not as an arm of the government, it is liable for the negligence of its representatives. Scroggins v. City of Harlingen, 131 Tex. 237, 112 S.W.2d 1035 [114 S. W.2d 853]; City of Waco v. Branch et al., 117 Tex. 394, 5 S.W.2d 498; Id., Tex.Civ. App., 8 S.W.2d 271; City o......