State ex rel. City of West Orange v. City of Orange
| Decision Date | 28 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 6106,6106 |
| Citation | 300 S.W.2d 705 |
| Parties | STATE of Texas ex rel. CITY OF WEST ORANGE et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF ORANGE, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Sonfield, Houston, John O. Young, Orange, for appellant.
Marlin Thompson, Orange, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment in the district court of Orange County, declaring certain territory to be duly annexed by the City of Orange.
The City of Orange was incorporated as a Home Rule city in 1914. The Home Rule Charter of the City of West Orange was adopted May 19, 1956. Prior to that time, since August 23, 1954, the City of West Orange operated as a municipal corporation under the general laws. The City of Orange, on September 9, 1952, passed an annexation ordinance annexing territory to the west of its original city limits; on May 19, 1952 it passed an ordinance annexing a part of Roselawn Addition and on April 27, 1953 it passed an ordinance annexing a part of Roselawn Addition, and on January 14, 1954, it passed an ordinance annexing all of Roselawn Addition. Such Roselawn Addition did not of itself lie adjacent to the original city limits of the City of Orange. The City of Orange annexed in said ordinances McArthur Drive, a portion of U. S. Highway 90 and State Highway 87, a highway which is 150 or 200 feet wide. By such annexation ordinances the City of Orange used McArthur Drive as a stem connecting the City of Orange with such Roselawn Addition, which is approximately 4,000 feet to the west. This addition contains 400 or 500 homes.
On July 20, 1954, the voters of the City of Orange adopted amendments to the Charter of the City of Orange, by which amendments the Commission-City Manager Plan of municipal administration was adopted. Other amendments adopted at the same time authorized the City of Orange to annex adjacent territory by ordinance and other procedure.
On February 14, 1956 the City of Orange passed an ordinance annexing territory which is adjacent to territory previously annexed, including Roselawn Addition, but which territory was not adjacent to the original boundaries of the City of Orange.
On February 16, 1956, the City of West Orange passed an ordinance, which was amended by an ordinance passed February 17, 1956, annexing territory adjacent to its City boundaries but which included territory included in the annexation ordinance passed by the City of Orange, February 14, 1956.
March 13, 1956 the City of Orange amended its February 14, 1956 ordinance by removing from said ordinance certain area previously included.
By separate annexation ordinances adopted March 19, 1956, March 26, 1956, and May 3, 1956, the City of West Orange annexed other territory in the same general vicinity.
May 19, 1956 the City of West Orange adopted its Home Rule Charter, which included within its boundaries a portion of the territory previously included in the final annexation ordinance passed by the City of Orange May 18, 1956.
After all various ordinances of annexation, with their amendments, were passed and adopted by both the City of Orange and the City of West Orange, one section of territory was found to be included by the annexation ordinances of both municipalities and such territory was the subject of dispute in this lawsuit.
The City of Orange, appellee, filed its suit, asking for declaratory judgment, seeking a judgment declaring valid its annexation ordinance of the disputed territory, alleging that because of the conflict of territory set forth in the Home Rule Charter of the City of West Orange, adopted May 19, 1956, with the boundaries of territory annexed by City of Orange, the Home Rule Charter of the City of West Orange was void. Appellant City of West Orange filed a plea in abatement, answer and cross action. The State of Texas, acting through John O. Young, County Attorney of Orange County, intervened by quo warranto on behalf of the City of West Orange. Later on application, order and supplemental petition, the State of Texas, through John O. Young, County Attorney, intervened by quo warranto in behalf of the City of Orange. Thereafter, John O. Young, County Attorney, filed a motion praying that his intervention and petition in quo warranto in behalf of the City of Orange, appellee, should be stricken and annulled and that he be permitted to withdraw as representative of the State of Texas on relation of the City of Orange and continue as representative of the State of Texas on relation of the City of West Orange and its officials. This motion was granted by the Court. The appellants City of West Orange et al., in their amended plea in abatement, answer and cross action, contended, and contend now on appeal, that the amendments to the original charter of the City of Orange were such that upon adoption thereof the amended charter constituted a new charter, and that the proper procedure had not been followed for the adoption of a new charter; that if such amendments to the charter of the City of Orange were amendments, then the election by which such amendments were adopted was void and of no effect, because the methods of submitting such charter amendments on the ballot were improper and illegal, and in violation of Article 1170, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes; that the annexation efforts made by the City of Orange were not made in conformity with the requirements of the original charter of the City of Orange before adoption of the allegedly void amendments thereto; that the description of the territory sought to be annexed by the City of Orange was not legally sufficient; that the territory sought to be annexed was not adjacent to the 'pre-existing boundaries of the City of Orange,' but is connected thereto only by the public highway known as McArthur Drive, which is part of U. S. Highway 90 and State Highway 87; that the attempt by the City of Orange to attack the annexation by the City of West Orange, being made without joinder by the state is a collateral attack thereon and it may not be thus maintained; that the disputed territory was not properly annexed by the City of Orange and therefore was properly annexed by the City of West Orange.
This plea in abatement was not immediately ruled upon by the trial court but was taken under consideration with the trial of the case on the facts. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and at the conclusion of the trial the court rendered judgment in favor of the City of Orange, appellee.
In the judgment the trial court overruled the appellants' plea in abatement and thereafter ordered, adjudged and decreed, and the court found, declared and determined the following:
'1. That the amendments to the original Charter of the City of Orange constitute in fact amendments as distinguished from a new Charter, were legally adopted, and constitute a part of the Charter of the City of Orange.
'2. That the description of the territory sought to be annexed by the City of Orange in the various annexation ordinances, although defective and contains incorrect calls, it is sufficiently certain and definite to determine what territory was in fact annexed, and is legally sufficient.
'3. Although Rose Lawn Addition is joined to the original City limits of the City of Orange only by United States Highway 90 and 87 which is approximately 200 feet in width, and it was necessary for the City in the ordinances annexing the said Addition, in order to reach the said land sought to be annexed, to include therein the entire length of the said United States Highway up to a point where it borders upon the land to be taken into the City limits and then extends out to take in such lands, the said Rose Lawn Addition constituted 'territory lying adjacent to said City' within the legal meaning of that term, all such annexation ordinances are legal, and the territory described therein comprises a part of the City of Orange.
'4. That the territory sought to be annexed by the City of Orange in the various other ordinances introduced in evidence at the trial of this cause, constitutes 'territory lying adjacent to said City', within the legal meaning of that term, all such annexation ordinances are legal, and the territory comprises a part of the City of Orange.
'5. Although the territory sought to be annexed by the various other ordinances introduced in evidence at the trial of this cause is joined to the original City limits of the City of Orange only by United State Highway 90 and 87 which is approximately 200 feet in width, and included therein the entire length of the said highway up to a point where the highway borders upon the land to be taken into the City limits and then extends out to take in such territory, such annexations are nevertheless in all respects legal, and the territory comprises a part of the City of Orange.
'6. That, insofar as concerns the territory sought to be annexed by both the City of Orange and the City of West Orange, the City of Orange first acquired jurisdiction over such territory, and, having first acquired such jurisdiction, the annexations thereof by the City of Orange are legal, and the attempted annexations by the City of West Orange, as to that part of the territory in conflict, but only as to the part in conflict, are without legal effect, and such territory constitutes a part of the City of Orange.
'7. That the original incorporation of the City of West Orange is in all respects legal and valid.
'8. That the City of West Orange duly and legally, by proper ordinance, adopted Title 28 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 961 et seq.).
'9. That the Charter of the City of West Orange was duly and legally adopted, is a valid Home Rule Charter, and the City of West Orange is legally operating thereunder.
'10. The territory described in the Home Rule Charter of the City of West Orange and in the various annexation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Irving v. Callaway
...County Water Control, etc., Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W.2d 241; Phillips v. Odessa, Tex.Civ.App., 287 S.W.2d 518; State ex rel. City of West Orange v. Orange, Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 705 and Forbes v. City of Houston, Tex.Civ.App., 304 S.W.2d Such being the rule we look to appellees' pleadings t......
-
Common Council of City of Gloversville v. Town Bd. of Town of Johnstown
...S.E.2d 136; City of Wichita Falls v. Bowen, 143 Tex. 45, 182 S.W.2d 695), including U.S. Highways (State of Texas ex rel. City of West Orange v. City of Orange, Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 705; People ex rel. Forde v. Town of Corte Madera, 115 Cal.App.2d 32, 251 P.2d 988) and State owned land ......
-
Fox Development Company v. City of San Antonio
...that land annexed by a city be of any particular length, width, shape or size. See also State ex rel. City of West Orange v. City of Orange, 300 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Civ.App.1957, writ ref'd n.r.e.); and Lefler v. City of Dallas, 177 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.Civ.App.1943, no writ). Our latest considerati......
-
Ridings v. City of Owensboro
...court has indicated that such an annexation may be attacked as an abuse of power and discretion. See State ex rel. City of West Orange v. City of Orange, Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 705. Our view is somewhat similar to that of the Texas court. As hereinbefore stated, we think that the propriet......